Who is Ken Kizer (aka "CFA")?

by Dan Kettler © 1999-2000

Page 2

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.

From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>

Subject: Re: Newsgroup Takeovers
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 19:20:14 -0700

Message-ID: <386EB5DE.83497904@psicounsel.com>
Widdershins wrote:

> Such as [ EHW ] unauthorized third party cancels. and threats
> of physical violence?

Oh, you didn't read my quotes of these so-called "cancels" or "threats"
did you?  Well they are linked from...

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

         At the bottom: "this linked page"

> >The USENET faqs indicate what abuse of
> >the net is.


> >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
> >has, it would not necessarily be NCAT.

> What? Unauthorized third party cancels are *not* censorship?

There are certain types of abuse of the net that are not
censorship.  Obviously, I'm not referring to unauthorized
third party cancels.  But, as I wrote in a previous post,
directed to you, I discussed that subject, and a copy
is on the web page, which you apparently did not read.


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.paranormal
Subject: CFA What of abuse _on_ abuse _of_ the NET? <was>
             Re: Mr. Dan Kettler, please pck up the courtesy phone...

Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 18:50:14 -0700

Message-ID: <386EAED6.7589949E@psicounsel.com>
References: <83n9mg$t6j$1@samba.rahul.net>

"CFA•"@alt.net wrote:

> Dan Kettler wrote:

> >Rebecca Ore wrote of "abuse of the net."

> >*********************************************

> Yes, you do. One might even say it's obsessive. But that's not my
> concern here.

DK:  The simple fact is that those who protest
        at my writing of it, write far more, far more
        often, than I do of it to begin with.

DK:  You are the obsessed one.

DK:  Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT)


> I have a question or two.

> If such a thing as "NCAT" is to be considered some misuse of
> resources, then it's either abuse ON the net, or it's abuse OF the
> net. It has to be one or the other.

DK:  NCAT is abuse of individuals.  It is censorship
         and terrorism of individuals.  It happens
         to be on the NET.  "Misuse of resources" is
         not what it is mainly about.  The resources are
         not the main focus.  ADMINS are mainly concerned
         with the resources.

DK:  NCAT is mainly abuse ON the net, but some
        NCAT is also abuse OF the net.

DK:  Abuse OF the net is not necessarily
        also Net Censorship and Terrorism.

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.

> If it's the former...

DK:  Is there some capability for rational thought in you?

DK:  I call your attention to "...if it's
        the former."

DK:  Why is it one or the other?  Why is it
         not, in that "mind" of yours,
         something else, other than 1 of 2?

To you, NCAT is EITHER ...

......."abuse ON the net"

     --- or ---

......"abuse OF the net..."

You say it has to be "one or the other."

Can you see why I cannot have a rational dialogue
with you since you are irrational?  You completely
lack logical reasoning skills.  Look, I'll try, here, to
get you to understand what REASON is.

Here, let's take "spam."  Spam can be an inconvenience,
but it will not necessarily censor anyone, nor will it necessarily
intimidate.  It is abuse of resources.

I agree that INTERNET resources should not be
misused, since it presents a problem to all using

I am not referring to all the so-called "spam" people
write about all the time.  I mean real spam...


However, spam is not necessarily Net Censorship or

Abuse OF the Net is not necessarily abuse of people,
or otherwise termed, abuse ON the net.

CFA: ...stated repeatedly by admins that they
        DO NOT want to have to intercede in
        flame wars.

DK:  They really should not.  That's a good
        idea. However, there is one totally
        discredited ADMIN Howard Goldstein,
        as a good Dr. just pointed out, who does
        get involved in flame wars.


CFA:  ...those posts that you so carefully catalog
          were made... [actually were posted]

      [dk -- at the NCAT page ]


CFA:  ...if it is actually abuse OF the net...then why
          have those people consistently declined to act on
          your concerns?

DK:   NCAT is not ((((EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER))) abuse of, (OR)
         abuse on, the NET.

DK:   Some NCAT is abuse of the net, other NCAT is abuse on
         the net.  Being abuse ON does not also make it OF.

DK:   Why have ADMINS not acted on the forgeries?  I
         don't  know.  I don't care.  It does not have
         to be a technically accurate forgery to
         be abuse of a person.  All one has to do
         to abuse someone is write Edmond
         Wollmann as author of a post that is
         denigrating and misrepresentative of that

      ADMINS do not necessarily act on that.

DK:   Posting someone's private info is not
         abuse of the net.  Some ISPs will act
         on it, others not.  I am informing
         ADMINS because I want them to see
         what is happening.

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.

DK:   I don't expect immediate action.

DK:   I want them all to know fanatics falsely
         accuse people of "spam," so they do not
         make mistakes and react hastily.  I want
         ISPs to know the nature of this fanaticism,.
         and of such censoring fanatics.

DK:  As I wrote before, and you don't believe
         me, my role is educational.

DK:   My writing of this is to inform, not to get
         immediate action.  My role is that of an

> If you're not seeking the "help" of admins, why
> do you post in nanau?

DK:  As I wrote in previous posts, (you never seem
         to relate to rational statements or logical deductions)
         my role is educational.  The above text explains part of it.

> If you're trying to change the nature of these groups by your own
> actions, does it not say something to you that you have so little
> support?

DK:  You have NO IDEA how many people agree with me.
         I do not seek "support" in the sense you write of.  I receive
         communication, regularly, from people who are intimidated
         from writing their agreeement in the newsgroups.
         Women, particularly, have been degraded in public posts,
         after writing they agree with Edmond H. Wollmann.  See
         the DEJA archives.  Select "power search."

DK:  Read my web pages.  They explain everything.  They are
         linked from the signature  URL.  People will, or they will
         not, make changes in the manner I have suggested.
         Either way is fine with me.  I cannot make such
         changes, and have no desire to.  It is their newsgroups.

DK:  I have no emotional attachment to the outcome.

DK:  I am only intent upon being sure the truth is
        out there, on the web, in NANAU, in the newsgroups,
        and that liars are exposed.

DK:  Mine is an educational role. You are, evidently,
        incapable of believing me.

DK:  You are so obsessive!  We have written this same dialogue
         before, but you go on, again writing the same things.

DK:   Even if you disagee, why not just stop writing the same thing
         over and over?

CFA:  If you're trying to change the minds of participants,
           it would seem that ploy isn't working...

DK:   You have no idea what I'm up to.  You don't
          believe me when I tell you.  Discussion with
          you is, largely, a waste of time.  I write, now,
          for those reading USENET so they may see
          how worthless your writing is, to be sure your
          attempts to discredit me with nonsense, fails.

> Ed's actions, and now your support of him, say to me that neither of
> you are honestly concerned about the newsgroups themselves.

DK:   The voices in your head "tell" you things.
          That has no value to rational people
          reading USENET.

         Many more read than post, by the way.

DK:   http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html

CFA: Nothing you've said or done so far
         suggests anything different.

DK:  "Suggests" to your "mind."  So what?

CFA:  As long as those are the conditions,
           I will continue to speak up.

DK:   And, you are continuing to discredit yourself, because what
         you write, obvious to those who are sensible, MAKES
         NO SENSE!


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news


From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>

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 05:28:04 -0700

Message-ID: <386F4454.5E75744B@psicounsel.com>

"CFA•" wrote:

> Dan Kettler wrote:
> >"CFA•"@alt.net wrote:
> >> Dan Kettler wrote:

DK:  Rebecca Ore wrote of "abuse of the net."

CFA: and ON the net...

> And she thoroughly addressed your concerns.

> What you call "terrorists" she calls "teases". Grow up.

DK:  At the time of her posting, Rebecca Ore could not have
         referred to my use of "terrorists," since I'd not used it.
         That was July of 1999.  NCAT started in Aug. 99,
         but it was about censorship, only, then.

First you write of USENET faqs, as if they were NEWSGROUP
FAQS.  Then you write of NCAT as if it was either abuse
of the net or abuse on the net, and that it supposedly
could only be one of the other.

             NCAT  Net Censorship and Terrorism


The above addresses the parts that are abuse of the net,
and abuse on the net.

USENET faqs describe how to CHARTER a newsgroup, and what
abuse of the net is, as well as abuse on the net.  They may be found
in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

Then you wrote of EHW supposedly committing abuse of the net,
and therefore also supposedly what I describe in NCAT.  You quoted
Rebecca Ore in an attempt to prove that falsehood.

The evidence that your delusion, described above, is false is not opinion,
but rather obvious fact that you refuse to read, and logically interpret.  The
USENET FAQ in NANAU that describes abuse OF and abuse ON the
net is clear, and the NCAT descriptions show that both exist.  This is not
just my opinion.

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.

You see, CFA, you write the same things over
and over, they are obsessive, and they have
not, and apparently will not make sense.

You lack the patience to contemplate what it
is you wish to respond to, or to thoroughly
investigate before reacting.  Try reading slowly,
a complete post, or even a complete paragraph,
before reacting.

Now, Rebecca Ore posted to these newsgroups
last July.  She did write of "trolling" and
that she believed, pretty much, what you
state in this post I'm responding to.

I, for one, posted my disagreement.

Here is the difference between you and she.
She does not obsessively write, like a child,
over and over that I'm wrong, each and every
time she sees me writing what she disagrees
about.  You do.

I addressed this matter of "trolling"
many times.  It, obviously, is not the
main motive of a core of posters who
turn these newsgroups into something
other than what the newsgroups were
intended for.

I doubt, seriously, that Rebecca
Ore sees it that way, now, though
she did last July.

Yes, there are those who use
newsgroups for entertainment, and
their idea of "fun" is to harass
people.  There are no real beliefs,
or non-beliefs, and mostly they
are like parrots, and they are

However, there is a core of fanaticism, and
a feeling that the paranormal and astrology
are a menace to society.  As such, they
wish to be sure that the NET is not a place
where anything of that nature will flourish.

I've written extensively on that, and
have proven the aim of such fanatics
is control and censorship.

It is only necessary to reference the
following URL which contains documented
evidence about the above...


This desire for CONTROL is evident both on,
and off the NET.


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>

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 12:57:21 -0700

Message-ID: <386FADA0.B7BD6024@psicounsel.com>

More about NCAT?  CFA, don't you ever tire
of writing about NCAT, repeating the same
things you wrote, and others wrote, which
I'd answered?



"CFA•"@alt.net wrote:
> Dan Kettler wrote:
> >"CFA•" wrote:

> >DK:  Rebecca Ore wrote of "abuse of the net."

DK:  ...and, you tried to establish with
         illogic, and things you know nothing of,
         that abuse of the net equals NCAT.

DK:  I established, with logic and facts,
         the two are not necessarily equal.

DEJANEWS shows my past posts...

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

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

CFA: They were/are.

DK:   You tried to establish that if Rebecca Ore
          accused EHW of abuse of the net, that
          would have been NCAT.

DK:  The facts, and logic, do not agree
         with what you say.

DK: All this was debated Aug. 99 to Dec. 99 and
        the debates were placed on the above
        referenced web pages.  Proofs were shown,
        archived quotes referenced.  3 people debated.

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.  ISPs, see the "ISP" reference on
DK:  the /news page, linked from the signature URL.

DK:  If it's lawful, it's not censorship.
DK:  examples I give on my site, are of
DK:  BOGUS, deceitful, and unlawful
DK:  complaints of PSF about me, and others.

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

DK:  A little use of logic would suffice.
DK:  Again and again, I've shown your
DK:  complete lack of ability with
DK:  logical deduction.

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

CFA:  Who appointed him savior?

DK:  He created the group, alt.astrology.metapsych
DK:  He wrote the charter.  That is not a "savior."

> 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.

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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

DK:  I would ask readers to reference EHW's
         site for info on that, because it's
         referenced. The EHW page is linked
         from the top of the NCAT site.

Click at the reference to Edmond H. Wollmann's site.

The text at that URL page reads as follows:

"Jason Barr threatened me with legal charges of harassment
because I called a telephone number provided by Pacbell
employees to complain to him personally. I have saved the
recording of his threats. Others who also called were likewise
threatened and defamed on the Internet for doing so. I ended
up canceling my accounts there."
CFA: What would you call [accusations of] third-party

DK:  More accusations from the EHW defamation
        site which I quoted, and answered, linked
        from the bottom of the NCAT page.  See...

        "this linked page"

<snip -- nothing new under the sun from CFA>

DK:    http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

"CFA•" Ken Kizer wrote:

Dan Kettler wrote:


             All about CFA, IMHO:


     > On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:41:52 -0800, Dan Kettler
         <dan@psicounsel.com> wrote:

     > >"CFA•" wrote:
     > >
     > >> Dan Kettler wrote:
     > >
     > ><snip>

     CFA: Why do you keep...<snip>

     DK: Why do you continue to act like a parrot, saying the same
             things over and over?

     DK:  See, everything, including PSF do NCAT, not PRO,
              (click for acronyms) was discussed long before you thought of it.  It
              was discussed again with Matt Kriebel.  Is that
              your point, again?

     DK:  Every time I make an announcement, which I'm entitled to
             do, you show your obsessions by repeatedly ranting
             against it.

     You act like a pouting little child.

     Look at the following URL...



     The point of whether PROs do NCAT was discussed.  It's
     linked from the reference to debates near the top of the page,
     There was one out-of-context quote of EHW that I corrected.

     Access NCAT, the first page, then click at... "this linked page"
     near the bottom.
     I discussed the alleged EHW cancelling posts matter
     with Matt Kriebel.  There is great doubt that EHW posted
     the cancels.  Use  /terrnot.html to discover that. See
     Kriebel's response.

     I went over quote after quote of alleged threats of physical
     violence from the EHW defamation site, with Kriebel.
     See /terrnot.html for the discussion.

     You and I discussed this.  The debates are linked
     after you click at "debate" on the NCAT site.

     I do not have forever to go over the same points again
     and again with obsessed people.

     I'm writing  announcements.  I do that periodically.

     You are, obviously, obsessed to continue the same
     irrational protests again and again each time I post
     something you disagree with, calling me "paranoid,"
     "delusional" a "sick puppy" and other nonsense, with
     no substantial facts to back you up.  You should not
     wonder why I do not show you much courtesy or

    You disagree, so what?  The readers will decide how
    valid the material on the NCAT site is.

    Click here for page 3