This page is under construction
Latest UPDATE February 13, 2001
For postings found on this and other linked pages which
are noted as having DEJA links, go to 
and enter the "From:" address in the space designated author.
Also, enter one of the newsgroups shown in the message
header. Then, look for the correct message. Later on,
will refine their search procedure.
has acquired the archives of DEJA,
and they have committed themselves to restoring user access to them all
the way back to the year 1995. For more information, click
here.
Bob Officer ceased allowing his posts to be archived at a certain point
in time, but a large number of them are still available through
Dec. 20, 2000 Lucianarchy tells Bob Officer "like it is" or like he is.
Feb. 2000 --- Bob Officer writes nonsense about Astrology, Carl Jung, and Synchronicity
May 2000 writing about astrology -- reveals complete lack of reading comprension ability and simple mindedness.
I'm starting this page Oct. 17, 1999. I'm showing 4 postings to
the newsgroups alt.paranormal and alt.astrology.
They were posted today. There will be revision of these postings,
and probably some additions, sometime in the future.
I will not revise the actual words of other posters, only my own.
I'm writing this paragraph February 2000. Since I've shown proof
of Bob Officer's writing on these web pages,
he has ceased allowing his posts to be archived. This way, I
cannot prove through that storage medium that
he wrote what he did after he ceased allowing the archiving.
The previous posts, as referenced from these
pages, still appear in DEJANEWS.
I can prove the more recent posts through multiple witnesses.
This linked page shows Bob Officer's writing
of blatant falsehood, propaganda, and attempts to promote the
maintainence of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF) control
of the principal paranormal
and astrologynewsgroups.
Does Bob Officer utilize logic, and does he understand what "logic" means?
In October, I wrote, on this page, of Bob Officer showing feelings of
inferiority. Now, Feb. 2000. this is
given further weight by the following statement:
Bob Officer wrote:
"To date I have not failed at anything
I ever
attempted to do."
"Ever."
The complete context of the above is linked here.
The "subjects" of these posts were Bob Officer, Bob Officer (part 2)
and Bob Officer (part 3), and the final one
noted below.
The DEJANEWS archives offer verification of the words placed here.
Later, after copies of Bob Officer's previous writing were shown to
USENET readers, he ceased allowing them to be
archived by DEJANEWS.
This is page 1
Latest revision is Jan. 29, 2000
Who is this "CFA" who writes in the newsgroups against proponents of the paranormal and astrology?
During 1999, the assault continued from Bob Officer, unprovoked and
with obvious deceit. I condensed certain
portions of these pages and posted them
directly, rather than just referring to the URL address of these pages.
This was defense, and it was done by a counter-attack with words of truth.
When you use
the truth as a defense, that action is justified. I have placed
pages about Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT).
When references to URLs do not suffice as a deterrent to attackers in
newsgroups, then start dividing portions up, and posting them completely
each day. As an
example, divide your information into 10 portions, and then post each
portion every day. Be sure you are not cited for "spam."
Repeat the posting after number 10
is finished, and commence again with number 1. Do this until
the attacks stop.
PART 1
bobo@nospam.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
======================================================
note on the alt.astrology cross-post...
THE
PSF
are crossposting denigration of character
to both newsgroups. I am replying with a defense.
I had stopped cross-posting for a few days, and watched
to see what the PSF were doing.
I will endeavor to cease cross-posting to alt.astrology.
======================================================
At the conclusion of the writing of this post, I wrote to Bob Officer,
and I repeat here at the beginning:
I rest my case. You have NO credibility
to any intelligent, rational person who has
investigated your writing.
=======================================================
Subject: Re: nut cases
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 08:03:07 GMT
Message-ID: <380d808c.10818404@news.supernews.com>
...member of the "skepticult" organization... what is that?
It is a group, designated with this web site...
It is a group, described accurately at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/skeporg.html
The principal activity of the USENET active members, which may be
verified in the DEJANEWS archives, is lying denigration of character.
http://www.deja.com (use "power search")
Then there is censorship and terrorism. What is CENSORSHIP
AND TERRORISM?
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:11:11 GMT, in alt.astrology Amos Keppler
<asterdiscaveman@hl.telia.no> wrote:
I'm not talking about "destroying civilization to
save from itself", but saving Life on this planet
and expecially Humanity. Civilization is the
problem, both physically and spirituality and
can never be the solution.
BO: Amos then I suggest you take an ax to everything you own..
BO: house, car, computer, and then find someplace a cave,
BO: and a stick and try to get enough food to keep yourself
BO: alive.
<snip>
BO: Amos you are rather beyond talking to...
DK: No, you are beyond talking to. You are beyond understanding
DK: nearly anything that people write or say.
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=510876374&fmt=text
Click at the above, it is also copied with other pertinent text to
another page: http://www.psicounsel.com/spamans1.html
**********************************************************************
It is intended to inform the readers what is, and is not, permitted
in
regard to repeat posting. Essentially, the message is that repeat
posting is permitted, as long as it is...
1. ...below the spam thresholds
by Usenet FAQ
standards
2. ...for netiquette purposes,
not too close
to the limit of spam thresholds
3 ...for netiquette purposes,
to conform
to newsgroup charters and faqs, it should be
on-topic by the standards of the newsgroups
posted to
A short, identical, statement of introduction may be included.
See the below text for an example of what is meant by "short,"
A review of "spam" in light of the many accusations that have been
placed against proponents of the paranormal, and the paranormal
aspects of astrology, which contains links to official documents, is
here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/spam.html
The above URL clarifies the fact that citing web page addresses is
permissible under certain circumstances. This has also been
discussed in Usenet postings.
****************************************************************
The above are the facts. The garbage you wrote, and asked
ADMINS to enforce to CENSOR me was BOGUS.
****************************************************************
<snip>
Note: "AK" is Amos Keppler
BO: I was suggesting you remove yourself 1st...
AK: You're not one of them who are implying that people
AK: can't critisize society or civilization, without leaving it
AK: first, are you? You can't be that stupid!
DK: Surprise!
BO: You seem to be not aware of the proper terms. The
BO: unibomber took one method of criticizing civilization,
BO: he method of correction seemed to be remove certain
BO: people.
BO: You, Amos, seem to that stupid...
DK; Note the innuendo of the "skepticult" organization
DK; people. See how denigrating and nasty they are?
BO: I remain a humble student...
AK: Humble? HUMBLE? That must have been irony?
BO: I am a 35 year student of martial arts,
DK; Humble about it?
BO: Expert marksman...
DK: That has something to do how well you think?
DK: Didn't you write, not so long ago, that if a policeman
DK; pointed a pistol at a person threatening him with a
DK; knife, he could be arrested? Did you know in certain
DK; states of the U.S. a policeman can shoot and kill a
DK; person with a knife in their hand, if close enough,and
DK: not even lose their job?
BO: ... wilderness survival expert...
DK: "expert" and you are so humble about it, no?
BO: ....I can do just about anything I put my hand to.
DK: So humble about it all, if it's true, but then with
the many lies you have written, who could
believe you?
DK: The really pathetic thing about your lies, though, is
that you seem to believe them.
================================================
********************************************************************
Rebecca Ore answered Bob Officer in NANAU news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
on Date: August 11, 1999:
"If Andrew Gierth said he wasn't going to
cancel it, it isn't spam. And you can't
argue us into seeing it as spam..."
One would think that would be the end of the story, but no, this CENSOR
and member of a group of people boldly attempting CONTROL OF NEWSGROUP
activity, wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Your last line shows you didn't read
what I wrote. I wasn't talking about Ed
Wollmann. I was just pointing out Dan
Kettler's postings were classic examples
'to the tee' that matched the one in Tim's
FAQ."
Rebecca Ore replied:
"I knew you were talking about Kettler."
DK: But, then, does Bob Officer ever know what anyone
is
talking about?
Is he ever able to communicate
effectively, or clearly?
*******************************************************************
Bob Officer wrote:
"I wonder if it was as embarrassing as Edmond
when he it was reported he couldn't get
an erection, even when he placed a pair
of panties over his head."
In the past months, all Edmond Wollmann has done is post about
astrology, no nasty remarks, or innuendo. This is the way the
"skepticult" members behave. This is Bob Officer's "humor."
Funny? No. Pathetic and nasty, yes.
Let us examine the character of Bob Officer a bit more, here:
AMOS: I'm asking you again, and I would appreciate an
AMOS: answer this time. Do you want to exclude me from
AMOS: using technology, to keep me from critisizing it
AMOS: in technological forums?
BO: Yes, Amos it is called being hypocritical
DK: It does not look like an answer to me.
BO: Like fighting for peace. or Writing letters to the editor
BO: calling Freedom of Press a great evil or
BO: Living in a wooden framed house and whining
BO: about the strip cutting of timber lands.
DK: No, that does not look like an answer to me, either.
DK; It looks like writing analogies that do not apply.
DK: It looks like the "skepticult" disinformation and denigration
DK: of character.
BO: Doing so, is a hallmark of a kook. Amos, you wear
BO: your hallmark well!
DK: Accusing people of being so-called "kooks" is the hallmark
of a
DK CENSOR, writing about one whom they would like others to not
DK: pay attention to because they have written so many nasty
DK: and inaccurate statements about them.
DK: Bob Officer is a member of the group I
DK; accurately describe as...
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF)
DK: The PSF are both skepticult organization
members, and non-members.
BO: Mr Amos Keppler, the news kook and nut case
BO: [Raymond Karczewski] the looney tune Ex CHP officer
BO: [Kettler] quote [s] from multiple threads to twist what
BO: people are saying...
DK:
I quote you above, from multiple threads, and there's
no "twist" [ing] It's plain and simple. You are quite
nasty. You are writing without provocation, and with
no facts to back you up. I have written nasty remarks
about people, myself, and even occasionally called
a person a "fool," but in most incidents I have quotes
from them to back me up.
You, on the other hand, just call people names,
It's all empty
rhetoric.
When anyone writes that much denigration of character,
without
anything to substantiate the accusations_ to my view, they have
much
lacking within themselves. I've noted your writing, so much,
about
yourself and all the "great" things you, supposedly, have accomplished.
To my view, that shows marked feelings of inferiority.
Your constant berating of people shows you find yourself inadequate,
and
you need to find some fault, something missing in other people, to
compensate, to show how superior you, supposedly, are.
You obviously do not communicate well. Your ability
to interpret
legal writing is practically non-existent. It is difficult for
me to
believe you wrote some document for your INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER that was actually put into use.
Months after I, Dan Kettler, wrote the above about Bob Officer, this
appeared in the newsgroups:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 05:39:58 GMT, in alt.astrology "Wollmann, E"
> <arcturian1@netscape.net> wrote:
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> >No one can interpret a life or level at which they themselves have
not,
> >or cannot function. You are not near any level I function at, therefore
> >you could not understand much if any of my understanding. You are
just a
> >cohort abuser, worjking with these other paid assasins to attempt
to
> >thwart me from my unstoppable future, trying to denigrate that which
all
> >of you fear.
> >
> >What do you think of this chart?
> >
> >http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/accelera.htm
BO = Bob Officer
BO: I have seen it, I feel it has potential, after the
native comes to grip with
his own his person bias
and his own false self worth.
The Chart shows a
person who is open to self
deception.
BO: I think the following might apply.
Cordelia's Axiom is the only name I have seen
labeled to this. If it has another name,
I would like to know.
When you chose an Act, you also chose the
consequences of that act.
The corollary of that axiom.
When you want the consequence of an act,
you must to take an action that will create it.
EHW: I will prove the truth of the matter. You all will
fail. Questions?
BO: No question.
To date
I have not failed at anything I ever
attempted
to do.
Ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: bobo@nospam.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 09:22:36 GMT
Message-ID: <38a9f42f.172740448@news.supernews.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------
BO: Take a look in the mirror, you are disrupting more than
BO: one newsgroup. You are off topic in alt.astrology,
BO: please trim your headers.
DK; How often do you write about astrology? Nearly all
DK: I read are nasty remarks, and denigrating character
DK; from you, Bob Officer.
BO: Dan doesn't mind cross posting to alt.astrology, where he
BO: has been asked not to cross post between
BO: alt.paranormal and alt.astrology.
DK: You write denigrating remarks about me. I reply.
DK: Your remarks are cross-posted, as are many other
DK: such remarks from other PSF. I am replying to
DK: both newsgroups.
>> LM: But if they follow the rules, they will be tested. Something
>> LM: you fail to grasp.
>> DK: Since there are many rules, and you do not specify which
>> DK: is the one in question about this affair with John Benneth,
>> DK: how can anyone grasp it?
BO: Most of the people who "attempt" the challenge never fill
BO: out the form correctly.
DK: Since John Benneth obviously filled out the form correctly,
DK and since you seem not to know anything about the
DK; situation, why comment on it?
BO: Many of them don't understand Randi has the money and
BO: set the rules.
DK; It seems you are unable to read a post you are replying to.
DK: For all the many accomplishments you report which would
DK: require good mental skills, how is it you cannot correctly
DK; read what I wrote, above? See it, above? "...you do
not
DK; specify which is the [rule] in question...how can anyone
DK: grasp it?"
>> DK; This is a form of censorship. I show how you, and your
ilk
>> DK: do this at...
>> http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
>> DK: The proven references show this as fact.
BO: ....only in brudan's little world, Dan refers to his own
BO: pages which refer to his writings, which refer to his
BO: pages in a circular manner. Dan's pages are not
BO: proof, no more than his articles.
DK: You seem unable to read BO. Look, above.
I
DK: wrote "proven references" so how could they be,
DK; as you write, "which refer to his pages in a
DK: circular manner." 1. Is this deliberate lying?
2. Is
DK: this just you not looking at the pages? 3. Is this
DK: you not being able to properly interpret "proven
DK: refererences" above?
DK: Any of the 3 above being the case, any of the questions
DK: I asked above, at least one
of them HAVING TO BE THE FACT
DK: shows you have no credibility to any intelligent and unbiased
DK: person.
<snip>
I rest my case. You have NO credibility
to any intelligent,
rational person who has investigated your writing.
--
Psychics, Astrologers, UFOs,
Mysticism and the Newsgroups
What's happening?
http://www.psicounsel.com/news
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Subject: What is logic? <was> Re: Dan
Kettler: "logic," and "people skills"
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 09:20:49
-0700
Message-ID: <389D9F61.612DB83E@psicounsel.com>
Bob Officer wrote:
> >>"CFA•" wrote:
> >>
> >>His quotes are at, and linked from...
> >>
> >> http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html
<snip>
> >>> Dan Kettler wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >If all premises are true, and a valid argument is presented
> >>> >based on those premises, the logical conclusion will be a true
> >>> >conclusion.
BO: True premise: Edmond is not now nor has he
ever been a counselor.
DK: Proof that neither you, or CFA, even understand
logic, and proof that you
and he are unable to utilize it
is at or linked from, the
cfa.html
page. The
above is also proof.
See new pages at "click here" from
the second
paragraph from the top of cfa.html. This
page
explains logic.
You are both irrational.
The above, from you, BO, is a conclusion, not a premise.
> Reasoning behind true premise: The state of california requires
> testing prior to issuing a license to be a counselor.
The above proves that EHW is required to obtain a license to be
a licensed counselor. It does not prove:
1. ...he does not have a
license
2. ...he is not a counselor
People counsel others, all the time. Anytime a friend has a
personal problem, people counsel, and that does not come under
the heading of required licensing.
BO: Some prerequisites are needed to take the test.
DK: And, you say you know that these prerequisites were not met?
BO: ...a minimum of a Masters Degree in the field of
psychology or related
field.
DK: But you are a "skeptic" and skeptics always want proof.
DK: You know he has no Masters degree?
DK: You know he's not a counselor, albeit an unlicensed one?
> True premise: Edmond is a Thief.
That's a conclusion, not a premise. Also, you called me a
"thief" once, and I cited a URL with a FAX that proved
you wrong.
http://www.psicounsel.com/facmfax1.jpg
Then, again, you've been proven irrational, obsessed, and
just plain wrong again and again at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
> Reasoning behind true premise: Edmond has on his web pages several
> MP3s and RAs which appear to be copies of Copyright material <snip>
DK: You called my quoting, infringement of copyright, but
I proved you wrong,
right from the publishers themselves.
BO: Edmond is a liar and criminal when he claims to be a
counselor or offer his service
as a counselor.
DK: And, you prove, again and again, you love to
denigrate people.
I show, at bobofficer.html, my reasoning, my
opinion, that
you suffer from intense feelings
of inferiority.
CFA: Your [DK's] conclusions are incorrect because you start with a
false premise.
DK: I discussed the above on this page.
BO: Hey am I doing better than Kettler?
DK: Far from it.
> Bob Officer
> "I founded this newsgroup in the early 1990s. The charter below
is the
> original and continuing intent of this newsgroup as I proposed it
at
> the time the newsgroup was created. I hope that many will find an
open
> forum for discussion of paranormal topics." Steve Reiser, 1998
The above is at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
Bob Officer is a member of "Skepticult" and what is that?
http://www.psicounsel.com/skeporg.html
--
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news
