Who is Ken Kizer (aka "CFA")?

by Dan Kettler © 1999-2000

This is controversy about the USENET newsgroup situation: pseudo-skeptics, censorship, newsgroup formations, complaints to Internet Service Providers (ISPS), chaos, charters, astrology, the paranormal, UFO research, and New Age Ideas.

Supppse you are not interested in "USENET newsgroup situations: pseudo-skeptics, censorship," etc. but you want to know what it is about Ken Kizer that is so strange, so bizarre, and so destructive?  Well, let's "cut to the chase," read less, and not waste time.  Just click here.  When you do, you will have the opportunity to check references to verify what I write.

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.

Charters are mentioned 6 times on this page. Link to 1  Link to 2  Link to 3  Link to 4   Link to 5   Link to 6 (with reference to Edmond Wollmann's charter)

It is also about obsessive, fearful, behavior on USENET, delusion, and an obvious and habitually revealed inability to think and express oneself logically.

Click at this DEJA link  for all that Dan Kettler shows evidence of (hundreds of posts) about CFA (Ken Kizer).

                  This page updated Feb. 13, 2001

This page shows a sample of the reply posts linked above, and other material not posted.

A description of the actual problem regarding Edmond H. Wollmann, and the actual solutions in light of USENET protocol.

For an Aug. 20, 2000 update, click here.

April 22, 2000 Update:

                   From: CFA• < @.>
                   Newsgroups: alt.astrology, alt.astrology.metapsych, alt.paranormal
                  Subject: Paging Mr. Kettler; please pick up the courtesy phone in the green room...
                  Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:40:48 -0400
                  Message-ID: <8j8vfs4pdh2hauf1c78ghv6bpu61sd7ca5@>
                  X-No-Archive: yes

Welp, I see Dan's been busy workin' on his web pages, so I thought it
best to bring things over here... give it the light of day, so to

[In the newsgroups, unarchived, CFA-Ken Kizer placed a copy of a number
 of pages from this web site in the above quoted post.  Some of the replies from
 others, mainly psuedo skeptic fanatics, are archived.  See DEJANEWS.

  "Cujo" <cujo@usenet-performance-art.org> (archives posts)
  Beep <spamnot@west.net> (archives posts)
  arcturian@counselor.com (Bob Officer) (does not archive)

  As of early morning 4/22/00, no details regarding the content of these
  pages were commented upon in the above mentioned newsgroup thread]

You're the one who keeps things going, Dan. When you're not posting, I
don't keep talking about you. So, what's to defend?

I'd say you've got a grudge, and I'd call it pretty angry stuff.

Ready to drop it yet?

>Who is Ken Kizer (aka "CFA")?
>by Dan Kettler © 1999-2000
>This is controversy about the USENET newsgroup situation:
>pseudo-skeptics, censorship, <snip>

>This page updated April 16, 2000 <snip>


Reply on this web page, not in the newsgroups:

                I have not posted in newsgroups since April 3, 2000.

                "Ready to drop it yet?" you say.  There's nothing to drop.

             "I don't keep talking about you," you say.  Who's 'talking'?

               As I wrote previously, writing on these pages do not remain
               because of anger, nor do they reflect a grudge.

               You are not credible.  These pages are proof of that fact.  The
              fact that you are not credible is my defense.  It is evidence that
               your obsessive derogatory writing about me, in an attempt to
               discredit me, is worthless.

             Usenet shows a history.  It is evident in the posts you placed
               before you ceased archiving, as well as the posts of others
               archived who quoted you.  These pages reflect that history.
               That history will remain intact on these pages, and will be
               referenced by those reading the archives.

             The April 16 revision, with the the recently added links, are
               not acts of anger, only clarification.  Another function of
               these pages is education, so it's not necessarily all about

At the beginning of the formation of these pages, I explained to
you in a public posting that others who I've quoted on my web
pages asked to have that material removed years later.  Your reply
indicated that you had no objection to this placement of your words,
and then as you continued your obsessive attacks in newsgroups,
falsely painting your delusions of  my character and mental stability,
I continued to perfect these pages.

So be it.

Some of the wording on this page of my own writing has been changed. (URL change, grammar correction, etc.)
Parts of the writing of Ken Kizer (aka CFA) are edited for brevity.

Abusive writing started from him, some time ago, with off-the-wall, unprovoked, and unfounded comments about me
supposedly being paranoid, delusional, a "sick puppy," etc.  Quotes of some of those comments are linked from
the NCAT pages starting in Aug. 1999..

Feb. 10, 2000 CFA-Ken Kizer wrote:

Are you surrounded by spooks in your neighborhood?  Is your phone tapped?
Do large Ford sedans follow you all over town? Are there black helicopters
(with no identifying markings) hovering close now? Are people recording your
every keystroke? Do they have records of all your financial dealings?
Is everyone that disagrees with you here out to murder you?
If anyone is "paranoid" it's CFA---Ken Kizer, with an irrational fear of Edmond H. Wollmann.  His obsessively repeated
insistence that all things derogatory written about EHW are true, in the face of obvious and proven facts, shows that
he is quite obsessive about the alleged truth of his delusions.  The frequency of repetition is obsessive.  He found a post in
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet from me, and posted his reply to alt.paranormal/alt.astrology.  Then after his obsessive
post after post protest, accused me of off-topic posting.

Many of the NCAT pages have individual post directed DEJA links.  Most posts on this page do not have such DEJA links.
A collection of links to posts in the DEJA archives may be found through the link at the top.   To find particular
DEJA links to my (Dan Kettler) posts, use this DEJA link, and select "power search" by clicking on it.  You probably
will not find Ken Kizer's posts, because he decided to prevent archiving of his writing.

From: CFA•@alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.astrology.metapsych,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: CFA What of abuse on abuse of  the NET? <was> Re: Mr. Dan Kettler, please pck up the courtesy phone...
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:21:12 -0500

Message-ID: <haev6s07e4a7pbmass3h577q5o44o4fosm@news.alt.net>
References: <386B485F.CE3A013B@psicounsel.com>
<84g62j$sqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <84hq2n$1f9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<84hugf$rnj$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <eorp6s82iehkgs283p8221cimavvjsaipj@news.alt.net>
<386E38BB.82DD611A@psicounsel.com> <d4qs6s8li4qec8v6vgksvps3rr1skffvk4@news.alt.net>
<386EAED6.7589949E@psicounsel.com> <16et6sgs2er8v5juosunrb1rau00rnuup0@news.mindspring.com>
<386F4454.5E75744B@psicounsel.com> <227v6soedmmqvd74m81slv231p91hvofkg@news.alt.net>

[My replies, here on the web page which were not posted, are in bold red -- dk]

X-No-Archive: yes    What does this command to DEJA, meaning don't archive my posts, convey?
                                  Reader, you be the judge of that.

Dan Kettler wrote:

>"CFA•"@alt.net wrote:
>> Dan Kettler wrote:
>> >"CFA•" wrote:
>> >DK:  Rebecca Ore wrote of "abuse of the net."

>DK: <snip> [EHW] acts were supposedly what I
>DK: describe in NCAT.

>CFA: They were/are.

>CFA: ...attempting to get astrologers' accounts nuked for
>CFA: minor off-topic posts to "his" vanity group...<snip>
>DK:  Since the charter is by him, and he created the
>DK:  group, and the complaints regard the charter,
>DK:  then it is up to the ISPS to decide what to
>DK:  act on.

They have decided. They don't act on his complaints.

This was already discussed.  One can easily read previous posts
by clicking at the DEJA reference at the top of this page.

This is what is so ridiculous about you Ken.  You write the same things
over and over again.  It's obsessive.  When I answer you, you
go on again and again with the same ridiculous nonsensical
arguments that show your obvious inability to think logically.  You
repeatedly show your complete ignorance of the way USENET is

A difference of opinion is one thing, but obsession is something else.

Anyone who knows about INTERNET policy implementation, knows that
your words, "they have decided" are nonsense.  They do not vote.  The Internet
is not a democracy.  Some decide to do it one way, others differently, and they
discuss these things amongst themselves.  I already wrote this obvious fact,
and it's verifiable, but Ken Kizer just goes on and on, like a parrot, repeating

Are you going to deny this, too?

See above.

>DK:  EHW's activities may be unpopular, but
>DK:  they are lawful, and correct by
>DK:  USENET established procedures.

The third-party cancels weren't.

See, here again, CFA going over and over again.  Why will
he not go to the discussion on this page that I've referred to
again and again, where these cancels are quoted, and
it is SHOWN that there is no conclusive proof they are
from EHW, and, in fact, that there is great doubt regarding
EHW having implemented  those cancels.  I've referred
to this page again and again, yet CFA will not quote what
I've written and attempt to find fault with the logic or
proven facts.

>DK:  Also, he did not attempt "nuking" accounts.
>DK:  He attempted to have the people warned.

No, he attempted to have them TOSd. He had people's accounts
suspended- at least until the individual providers found out about Ed.
In every case of which I'm aware, no one was permanently suspended.

Actually, it's pretty much up to the ISP whether to suspend, or otherwise.
The point, which you evidently agree with, is that there was no attempt
to "nuke" accounts.  You had, however, asserted there was.

>CFA:  Who appointed *him* savior?
>DK:  He created the group, alt.astrology.metapsych
>DK:  He wrote the charter.  That is not a "savior."

No, but his attempts to have people's accounts suspended are.


>> You keep arguing Ed's charter for aametapsych is valid. Just about
>> anyone else who's expressed an opinion disagrees with you.
>DK:  I've written this, and it makes sense.  It's
>DK:  copied to my WEB PAGES, linked from NCAT.

Here, CFA, is where you snipped the statement that connects
with the above.  See, when I snip, I do not change meanings.

Your snipping is deceptive.  I was not writing that the statement
below the snipped one made sense, (not that it did not)  but my
point was about another statement, the following which you
had snipped.


DK:  I don't _CARE_ what PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS PSF agree with,
DK:  when they disagree in newsgroups, and about
DK:  newsgroups, of the designation:

      .....astrology and paranormal...

DK:  PSF is the antithesis of astrology and paranormal.

DK:  As my web pages, with documentation, prove, PSF
DK:  want control[and here]  They are CENSORS.

DK:  A high majority disagreeing, are PSF.

DK:  If they don't like a.p.m., let them to go a.p.

DK:  Their opinion is especially irrelevant, because their
         design, through expression of such opinion, is to control
         and censor.


>DK:  The only one's agreement or disagreement that counts are
>DK:  the ADMINS -- the Internet Service Providers.
>DK:  Increasingly, they are learning who the KOOKS are,
>DK:  on USENET.  The kooks are the PSF.

Uh, I don't think so, Dan. Who won the 1998 Kook of the Year award?

That was 1997, but it was some very small percentage
(less than 1/100 of 1 percent) of Usenet.   In any event,
Pseudo-Skeptic Fanatics voted.  They don't like me because
I expose their sick ways, their need to control newsgroups and
other media, and their fanaticism.  More about them here.

Of what importance is it what people who are the
antithesis of astrology or the paranormal, (PSF) "voting" about
someone who posts as an advocate in alt.astrology
and alt.paranormal?

In any event, the ADMINS know who the REAL
kooks are, now.

>DK: > >You quoted Rebecca Ore in
>DK: > >an attempt to prove... [much] falsehood.
>CFA: It did [prove something].
>DK:  Your quote of Rebecca Ore probably proved one thing.
>DK:  She probably does not want to be quoted in attempts
>DK:  to prove any of the illogic and nonsense
>DK:  that any sensible person knows is ridiculous.

You had written that RO wrote of Ed's alleged abuse of
the Net.

This is evasion, Dan. It puts the whole affair into a sensible

No, it does not.  It is not "evasion."  Your quotes of Rebecca
Ore, with your interpretations, are complete
distortions.  See the posts below where I write
of your quotes of RO.

>CFA: What would you call 300 email complaints in *one*
>CFA: day to *one* provider?
>DK:  Without establishing that this actually happened,
>DK:  IF it did, some would say abuse of the net,
>DK:  which as I explained in a previous post is not
>DK:  necessarily NCAT.

It's been proven it happened.

Below you wrote that some PSF said it happened. The PSF
lie quite often.  That's supposedly proof?

And it IS an attempt at censorship. That fits into "NCAT" doesn't it?
I mean, the second letter stands for "Censorship", right?

It has been established, by logic and facts, that complaints
are not necessarily censorship, or attempts at it.

Complaints are simply application of accepted USENET
FAQ recommendations for users, according to ADMINS.

If an ISP places rules on a WEB SITE, and a subscriber is
found to be violating those rules, writing complaints to the
ISP is not, necessarily, real or attempted censorship.

When an experienced and intelligent person complains to
an ISP about something that is not written in either an authentic
CHARTER, or a FAQ, or which is obviously not against any
REAL RULES, that can be considered deliberate attempt, or
actual  censorship.

Writing to NANAU can be considered by some abuse of the
net, but it is not necessarily censorship, actual or attempted..

>DK:  In debates, copies of which are linked from the
>DK:  NCAT site, I've proven the EHW defamation
>DK:  site has a lot of BOGUS material on it.

No you haven't. You raised a few questions about forged messages, but
you haven't proven the bulk of it is bogus.

In a court of law, it's only necessary to establish reasonable doubt.
That is what you did regarding the /cancel.html page.  That's
what I did regarding the cancelled messages.  I have pointed
out that it's impossible to prove them as having been cancelled
by EHW, and, in fact, there is reason for great doubt.

It should be pointed out, here, that the "cancel" page is one
of many points on the NCAT pages.  There are 13, many of
which have been proven to have occurred.

Regarding the alleged "threats" of physical violence from
EHW, there are none quoted.  I copied the
alleged "threats" and discussed them.

>DK:  I believe the "300 posts" reference came from
>DK:  that site.

It originally came from Avital [Pilpel].

Great, in a court of law, that would be called "heresay."

From: CFA•
Subject: Re: Bob Officer still afraid CFA of Edmond H. Wollmann
<was> Re: Ed whines about receiving email
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 17:48:10 -0500
Message-ID: <15072048.e5b1b8@13.11>
X-No-Archive: yes

>> From: Nick Nicholas <nick@mail-abuse.org>
>> Date: 31 Jan 2000 12:53:07 -0800
>> Derrik <Ib@xa4.net> ***** writes:
>> <snip>
>> If Wollmann received 400 messages, I'd say it's
>> highly likely that Wollmann sent 400 complaints
>> to begin with. ...Columbia University complained
>> to me that they were receiving 300 bogus complaints
>> *per*day* from Wollmann even after they had asked him
>> to cease and desist.

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 23:17:47 GMT
Dan Kettler comments:

Heresay and speculation.  In a court of law all this
would be laughed right out of the courtroom.

This is similar to your lack of reasoning skills shown,
and utterly defeated by PROVEN FACTS, LAW, and LOGIC


And, now I comment upon this address, with a link:

                                           ***** Ib@xa4.net

CFA:  What would you call [accusations of] harassing
>      phone calls to Pacbell?

>DK:  I would call your acting like a parrot for PSF,
>     "sucking up." It brings non-harassment from PSF.

Ah. But you don't call it "inaccurate". Thanks for being honest.

Note, above, avoidance of the matter of "non-harrassment
from PSF."  It's an often-used tactic to divert attention from
one thing, by emphasizing something else.

"The elementary principle of all deception is to attract the
enemy's attention to what you wish him to see, and to
distract his attention from what you do not wish him to see."
                   - General Sir Archibald Wavell,
                      Memorandum to the British Chiefs of Staff, 1940

CFA, Ken Kizer, can you, yet, see how stupidly you write?
Let me show you how ridiculous your writing is.  I placed,
in brackets ( [ ]  those are brackets) which if you know
American English punctuation, means they are not your
words. "Accusations of" means not necessarily accurate.
Just apply some logic.  Read slowly, contemplate, stop
reacting, and respond intelligently.

Where I write you are "acting like a parrot" it's in
response to the modified statement, above.

And quit fu*king with the words I wrote.

See above regarding brackets.

I wrote "What would you call harassing phone calls to Pacbell?"

I know what you wrote, obviously.  Brackets are, in common
American English Punctuation, to show what another person

I answered that, it's in the DEJA archives, clicked to from the
top of this WEB PAGE, and it's on the next web page.

I wrote that EHW had answered that on his web pages, and it
would be advisable for the reader to examine those pages,
with EHW's answer.  I explained that one could go to the
NCAT page, then click at the Edmond H. Wollmann link
near the top of the page.

>CFA: What would you call [accusations of] third-party
>          cancels?
>DK:  More accusations from the EHW defamation
>        site which I quoted, and answered, linked
>        from the bottom of the NCAT page.  See...

If I'm not mistaken, Ed lost accounts for "accusations of" third-party

You are often mistaken.  Again, I will attempt to give you a lesson
in simple logic.  In reply to the modified statement, the question,
of what I would "call [accusations of] third-party cancels," I would
call them "more accusations from the EHW defamation site, which
I quoted, and answered."

My statement, because of the brackets, makes sense. Your
statement,  as is true with much of you write, makes

If you read the pages, you will see from quoted e-mail, that
EHW he did not lose an account for third party cancels.

From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>

Subject: CFA Re: Newsgroup Takeovers
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 10:26:19 -0700

Message-ID: <386E38BB.82DD611A@psicounsel.com>

"CFA• [aka Ken Kizer] "@alt.net wrote:

CFA:  ...attention seems to immediately wander
      off somewhere else...

Rebecca Ore wrote of "abuse of the net."



DK:  My citing the URL, above, is not spam.



Regarding "attention," the ability to focus
attention, to relate one statement to another,
or know what a "subject" is, is seriously
lacking in CFA...

That is shown from the DEJA links clicked at



Abuse OF the net consists of:


             spam (real spam, not what
                       is commonly called spam)

...and others...

The USENET FAQS indicate what abuse of
the net is.  BTW, CFA, I imagine you may now
know the difference between a USENET FAQ
and the FAQ of a newsgroup. You showed total
ignorance of that in a recent post.  The discussion
was about the formation of newsgroups, and my
point was that USENET FAQS describe
"chartering" of newsgroups, but no provision
is made for a rewriting of the charter by other
than the original party, while that person is available.

Many people are ignorant of the difference
between abuse of, and on, the net.  They
are also ignorant of the difference between
a USENET FAQ and the FAQ of a
newsgroup.  I have nothing against such
ignorance.  However, in a previous post
about the subject, you acted like a
"know-it-all," so you appear rather foolish.


You had written that Rebecca Ore wrote of Ed's
alleged abuse of the Net.

There is such a thing as abuse of the
net that is not NCAT.  I am not saying
Edmond H. Wollmann has committed abuse
of the net.  I am saying that if he had, it would
not necessarily be NCAT.

Complete clarification of what abuse OF the net
is, and abuse ON the net, from the perspective
of the 13 points of NCAT, is here.

newsgroups, and I proved it was them,
and not EHW in copies of debates (with
verified facts) linked from the NCAT
site.  Just click at "debate" at the
top of the page.


CFA, if you would look carefully, you'd
know your argument about abuse of
the net is irrelevant..


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>

Subject: Re: Newsgroup Takeovers
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 10:56:48 -0700

Message-ID: <386E3FE0.6F88F36@psicounsel.com>

"CFA•" wrote:

> >> >  The truth of th ematter is that he and we,
> >> >  are caught in a hen house,
> >> >  where the hens outnumber Kettler with at least ten to one.


DK:    Newsgroup Takeovers (subject header of this post)

          What is that about?  How did the "subject" get placed?

          Well, there is a URL that tells of newsgroup takeovers.

          There is documented evidence.

          NCAT:  http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html

          click at the URL link at number 1 (1 of 7)

          then click at the "afa-b" reference


AMOS: ...read his pages and his documentation about the
            takeover of these groups.

ANS:  Its not documentaiton ...

DK:  Every statement is verifiable.  One can just go
         to DEJANEWS:

       http://www.deja.com (use "power search")

DK:  The URL reference can be a guide, to know where
         to look in DEJA.  Any quotes from the "AB" WEB
         SITE can be verified with the webmaster.

DK:  The people involved in setting up
        a particular newsgroup, then chased
        away, can be contacted.

DK:  Even the fanatics used the word
        "take over" or "takeover,"
        though many of their posts were
        later cancelled (by themselves)
        in DEJA.

DK:  It's all avoidance of the facts,
        vague references to "its not documentation."

       What's "not documentation" ?

AMOS:   When you're attacked you're defending
                yourself, it's that simple.

ANS:    "...when kettler tries to dictate where and when
              people can post our defense is to stand
              against him."

DK:   More lies from spin-doctors.  I don't dictate
         where people can post.

DK:   See the following:


          FAQ of Newsgroup Chaos

AMOS:   alt.paranormal is supposed to be about
               paranormal activities.


ANS:   "Not paranormal activities as Dan Kettler sees fit...."

DK:     I don't dictate how I want paranormal discussions to be..

DK:  More lies.  Do you people ever stop lying?  Can you?
DK:  Do you just tell lies to yourselves, so you're deluded?

AMOS:   bob officer?...

> >> An astrologer, just happens to be one that Dan doesn't like. So Dan
> >> pretends he isn;t an astrologer. Simple world when you do tha, eh?

DK:  See, more BS.  All the astrologers who have read alt.astrology
         KNOW Bob Officer is NOT an astrologer.

DK:  See http://www.psicounsel.com/whos.html

        info, quotes from, Bob Officer....


> >> > ...and army has turned it into a
> >> > place where paranormal activity is ridiculed and people attempting to
> >> > discuss the subject are harrassed and bullied and picked on.

DK:  See the NCAT pages, and links, to see how that is done.
DK:  yes, as Amos has pointed out, those who "suck up"
DK:  to PSF do not get attacked.


> >> > This was
> >> > alt.paranormal Now almost everybody interested in the paranormal have
> >> > left. Call it alt.psf.henhouse or something, but that's what's going on.

DK: True.

> >> Kettler has for some time tried to dictate teh content on a.p.

DK:  That is BS, Kriebel.

Kriebel: ...skeptic and paranormalist alike
             have called him on his tactics.

DK:  Only one now.  CFA, a so-called astrologer who
         knows little of the subject.

     Two others, who said they were paranormalists (one who's
     raising a whole lot of hell in another newsgroup right now
     and the believers want to get rid of him).  The two wrote
     lies about me in the past, and they are both proven liars.

     Hordes of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) attack me with lies.

     Right now, --- 1 ---- one advocate of the paranormal and/or astrology
     fights me about what I write in the newsgroups regarding NCAT, and he
     does so stupidly and with obvious OBSESSION....


DK:  What you call "called him on his tactics" I know to be LIES
         and DENIGRATION OF CHARACTER, which I return with TRUTH,
         and exposure of the SICK MENTALITY of such attackers.



                   dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

Click here for PAGE 2