On July 8, 1997 I received a reply from PCI Systems about alleged "spam" activity from me.

I will not reveal the name of the person I corresponded with, because I do not wish to burden
this Internet Service Provider (ISP) with unwanted e-mail.

I wrote to the ISP:

...as long as they do not address the thread, I will
not answer it.  It's just an ideological difference, and they
want to get out their propaganda...

They use every possible weapon they can get their hands on to
fight their insane war with, including mass mailing to ISP'S as they
are doing now.

I'm sorry you have to take up time from your busy day with this.

They just continued to write to this thread, and I replied to them
again and again.  If they did not like the so-called "spam" why did
they continue, again and again, to address the thread?

I wrote that, in the thread, asking them why they continue to write
to the subject, knowing, full well, I'd continue to reply.


Thank you for your continued good service, and a clear head with these

On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Rollin Thomas wrote to my ISP:

>  To whom it may concern.

> User Bruce Daniel Kettler (dan@psicounsel.com) has recently spammed several
> newsgroups... <snip>

> Rollin C. Thomas
> thomas@mail.nhn.ou.edu

Complaints related to the following:

Subject: Re: NY TIMES destroys truth, and lies
                   Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 20:59:32 -0600
                   NEWSGROUPS: alt.paranormal and others
                   Reply-To: dan@psicounsel.spamblock.com

Rollin Thomas thomas@bubba.nhn.uoknor.edu wrote:

> bogart1@earthlink.net (Tim Hill) writes:
> > dan@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:

I, Bruce Daniel Kettler, wrote:

> >>As I view this, at this point, you are the *ONE* person continuing
> >>in this thread for further clarification, and so I am replying
> >>with this *ONE* answer.  I have not initiated these; they are
> >>replies.

      A reply to me, BDK:

> >What does your domain's ISP, pcisys.net, think about your spamming
> >of the same message thirty times.

      I replied:

I don't think the word "spam" would enter their minds, except that you
happen to misuse it.

Gosh, I believe they would think that I was replying to your questions.
You, and others, did post inquiries about:

                     NY TIMES destroys truth, and lies

...repeatedly, didn't you?  I did answer them, didn't I?  If you didn't
like my replies, then why did you "spam" your "inquiries" repeatedly,
over and over?

            Someone wrote to me:

> >Do they think it's ok. Should we all ask them?

            I, BDK, replied:

Yes, you might consider asking them, and then, they might ask you the
question that I just asked.


From: Bruce Daniel Kettler <dan@psicounsel.spamblock.com>
Subject: Re: NY TIMES destroys truth, and lies
Date: 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <33C097A2.4732@psicounsel.spamblock.com>

digger bhenry@spamfree.polarnet.com wrote:

> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
> >digger bhenry@polarnet.com wrote:

> It isn't clear what you mean. <snip>

><snip> why do you post it under this thread,

Well, digger, when you write to this thread, instead of me typing
answers to the questions you and others ask, I just answer with
my post since it gives the answers.  If you run out of
repetitive comments and questions, then I will stop answering.

As I view this, at this point, you are the one person continuing
in this thread for further clarification, and so I am replying
with this one answer.  I have not initiated these; they are

Get it?


I have wasted my time, answerering, individually, so
many repetitive and ridiculous people, that I will now
just repeat my clear, and quite sensible statement,
which answers them all:

>"[quoting John Swinton] The business of the journalists is to destroy the
>truth, to lie outright...'" <snip>


The issue of the post contents may be read at...