...continued from first page
I thought you "ignored" posts. I thought you didn't have a problem with wounded pride. Why worry abut sense, honesty and civility posts?
Why don't you ignore this post? Then the posts from me will go away, obviously. Too much "wounded pride" John?
Stop, just for once, being such a hypocrite. Ignore the parts of this post, why don't you? You keep telling me I should do that.
Why don't you do what you say I should do?
When were you appointed arbiter
does, and doesn't, make "sense" on usenet ?
When were you appointed critic of my writing about what I believe does
and does not make sense? Mind your own business. At least point
out some part of the writing if you want to be critical. I don't
mind disagreement, but you harass me about it with many, many, posts,
while not saying what it is you are being critical of.
If you had any idea of "sense"
wouldn't keep wasting everyone's time
talking about moderating an unmoderated
Everyone's time? Are you looking at reality, or the delusions
of your own "mind"? Do you observe? Do you think?
No, everyone does not think it's a waste of
time. I won't get into that because your stupidity and
dishonesty, right now, are the topic.
> Your dishonesty shows by cutting out one sentence of my
>writing, then posting it, and denying that it mattered when I
>called you on it in a post.
>>Golly, if one snips irrelevant comments in a
>>post they become "dishonest ?" Good one !
If you quote a sentence, and<snip>
those reading the sentence see that as having a different meaning
than if it was with the remaining part of the paragraph or
adjoining paragraphs, that's dishonest. I pointed that out, once
before, and you wrote something that meant whether in or out of
context, it did not matter. Your reply is either very dishonest, or very
stupid, but either way I have lost whatever shred of respect I
once had remaining for you.
And, I don't know if this might interest you, but others have
privately remarked that they are quite shocked at the "baiting"
of me you have done in posts recently. I interpret that to mean
that others have little respect for you, now, also.
So, if you have just a little sense, you will take the above
paragraph (which is the truth) as a clue to "cool it."
From: dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com (Dan Kettler)
Subject: John Fitzsimons 
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 06:13:44 GMT
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 16:31:09 -0500, "Del R. Mulroy"
Gosh, John Fitzsimons, you seem to feel it's a good thing to contribute
to a thread with my name in the header. That being the fact, you
should have no objection to my creating one for
Yep. By so many "skeptics"
agreeing on a number of things it has made
it pretty clear that putting people into
imaginary categories is not only childish
but pointless as well. There are good/bad
skeptics and there are good/bad believers.
John, again you write nonsense. No-one believes that because a person is skeptical, that they are bad. You are countering a "point" that was, to the best of my knowledge, never made by anyone in alt.paranormal, by word or deed. Even the use of the term, or the identification with the term "skeptic" does not mean, in my mind or expression, or that of many others such as John McGowan, that the people are "bad."
Only habitually sick behavior has been the focus amongst us. I've noticed obsessive behavior from people on both sides, the "skeptic" and the paranormal "proponent."
I've noticed your obsessive behavior, and veiled threats, also. It has nothing to do with your position about the paranormal, just your obsession to make people comply with your demands.
Here, again, John Fitzsimons, you continue to write without truth, without substance, and without sense.
>>... a place all can post freely in discussion
>>and post their mind without fear of attack from
>>either side. It is possible.
we have someone constantly
trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup
we will continue to have pointless
Dan Kettler reply:
The only pointless posts I've seen here, about these issues, are from you and those who express the same sentiments with no facts, and no sense, to back them up.
>>There is change happening, and it is going
>>to be change that we all will welcome.
are more and more aware
that such things as FAQs, Charters,
etc. by people who post here are usually
simply their way of trying to impose their
opinions on others.
Attempting to "impose opinions" on others is your action of threatening me with 15 to 20 posts of nasty remarks about me a day, and Del R. Mulroy's threats of making it so I cannot appear in my public library or bookstore because of what he will have published about me, supposedly, if I don't comply with his demands.
That's "trying to impose their opinion," and demanding certain action of me.
FAQ and Charter information and announcing who the creeps
are, and complaining to ISPs, is protection of people who would like to
post in this newsgroup without nasty remarks, and coercion
that causes people to stop posting about the paranormal, OR DEMANDS
that people prove anything. That's not imposing opinion. That is protection for ourselves and everyone who wants to post about the subject of the newsgroup.
You are the coercive ones, here. You and Del Mulroy are the
one's making demands and threats.
Subject: Re: Dan Kettler
From: email@example.com (John Fitzsimons)
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 23:35:56 GMT, dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com (Dan
< snip >
>>>More on this habitual liar, and non-stop flamer, at:
>>Yet another good example of "Sense, Honesty andDan Kettler:
>Yes, an excellent example.
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Fitzsimons)
< snip >
>>Yep. The term usually used for the negative influencing
>>of others is "psychic attack".
>>If for example one hates anyone eg. skeptics then one
>>is generally directing negative energies/entities to
>>these people. Another term for negatively influencing
>>other people is "black magic." Though this is more
>>commonly the term used for those who do these things
>>with the help of others and/or rituals.
Why would one, in a post directed to me, write that as an example? Since you have made it clear that you think I "hate skeptics," obviously you are most likely, slyly, referrring to me.
Additionally, as I pointed out in another post, one cannot hate something vague like "skeptics." One can only hate real people, not categories, in such a way as to produce "psychic attack." You know that.
From the above reference, and taking that into consideration other things you've written about me, one can see, easily, that there is high probability that in replying to my posting, you were slyly referring to me.
>Now, don't give me the "if the shoe fits..." expression.
Why not ?
Because, your reference was likely to me. Also, since
you are trying to hide your flames, and call me "paranoid" for detecting them, you are pretending not to be flaming me.
Since I wrote:
>I've written that one should not flame a person, unless
>flamed first. It's in postings of mine, as well as my
>website at /flame.html
...and you replied:
Subject: Re: Dan Kettler
From: email@example.com (John Fitzsimons)
...and with your pretending not to be flaming me in your
above reference to "hating" "skeptics"...
...you are, quite obviously, a cowardly hypocrite.
Hypocrites hide what they do, and do what they say others should not
As long as you continue to flame me, especially with the pretense that you are not, your hypocricy is shown.
From this, and other remarks from you, I can see you are a hypocrite and a liar.
In case you didn't get it, let me help you with an accurate definition of "hypocrite," unlike the dishonest and incomplete definition you falsely reported in a recent posting.
a person who pretends to be what he/she is not
That is not a person who kills someone in self defense after preaching against murder. It isn't even a person who smokes while telling others not to smoke. It's a person who pretends not to smoke while saying other should not do so.
So, obviously, you are the hypocrite, not me.
>You have, repeatedly, falsely stated that I "hate" skeptics
>by referring to [so-called] "hate" pages, which are about
>>Your derogatory comments about skeptics mean that
>>you "love" them perhaps ?
This is very stupid, John. A statement about the habits of pseudo-skeptics
that shows faults, is not hatred. Additionally, for someone to not
"love" them does not mean one hates them.
The sarcasm makes absolutely no valid point, and it is typical
of your stupidity when you are angry.
Normally, when you are calm, you can make some sense. When you are angry, you write irrationally.
>They are, obviously, not "hate pages."
< ROFL >
Any intelligent person reading them would not find them to be hate pages.
>Now, you are again launching your attacks upon me on USENET,
>and you are trying to be subtle in such a way that I would
>not be able to prove you had written about me.
>>Is your name mentioned above ?
It means nothing, whether or not my name is mentioned above. You, I, and most others know what you meant. Above, even in this post you hinted that I "hate" skeptics. You were writing a post with commentary directed at me, and in that post, your example was about a controversy you and I had been having.
It would have been less blatantly hypocritical and dishonest for you to just have written plainly, again, stating that I, supposedly, hate skeptics.
Still, if you decide to flame me again, and especially if you attempt to place a veil around it, you will be again showing your hypocricy. You have declared that no matter what a person writes about a person, one should not flame them.
"Flame" in INTERNET language means anything written about another that is inflammatory. It means something that might tend to arouse anger.
As in a chess game, you have made your moves, and in those moves your positioning was different than mine. Your postion, stated quite clearly, is that no-one should flame another for any reason. That means if I flame you, you are not to flame me, at all.
Now, I only do it in response to your flames, but even if I were to initiate them, for you to follow your own advice, you could not flame me in return.
My position has been that I should flame another if flamed first. That means I'm not a hypocrite when I reply to your flames, but using the English interpretation of "hypocrite," the main reason you are a hypocrite, and I am not, is that I do not hide my flames as you do, and pretend that I am not writing inflammatory statements.
I, unlike you, am honest. I am stating that I am flaming you. You are a hypocrite, and calling you that is a flame, and it is not hidden behind something.
>> Can we all spell ;I don't have any delusions about you, or about what you have been doing. You have been writing some very nasty, and obviously untrue statements about me.
>> P A R A N O I A ?
It is a reasoned deduction about your reference to hatred of skeptics as applying to me, having noted your past reference to my supposed "hate pages" about skeptics. That's not "paranoia," and your use of the word is just an indication of your stupidity and nastiness.
It shows the hatred you experience. You are burning up, inside, with hatred, all the while accusing me of hating skeptics. What a fool you are.
I don't hate you, Fitzsimons, I pity you.
I pity you because of the outright irrational posts you have been placing in alt.out-of-body. Imagine, criticizing something that is a common practice in that newsgroup, telling each other what city they live in. You actually went against the practices of about 31 people, and many told you how odd your behavior was. Then, 2 days later, on the 11th of March 1998, you were again adamant about your stand that people who had posted in that newsgroup were doing the wrong thing.
You are quite peculiar, lately.
>I do not hate anyone. I have made that clear many times.
>You do not believe me. I don't care if you believe me, or
>>Fine. Then why are you posting this ?
I am posting this to make it clear to all reading that your writing is irrational. When a person writes derogatory lies about another, they should be clearly exposed. I would do the same if someone wrote something like what you have in a newspaper. I would expose the irrationality of the person, or whatever I could find about the person that might point to the reason for them writing inaccurately, and with lies, about me.
That would make my defense about the lies written about me, that much more believable.
Since you are character deficient and a hypocrite, it makes my case more plausable, that what you have written about me is untrue.
Any attorney prosecuting a libel case would do the same. It has nothing to do with hatred.
And, as I've written before, if you cease your attacks on me in USENET, I will cease my responses to you. You, evidently, did not have that much sense to see you had been beaten. Hopefully, from this post you will realize your attacks upon me should be over.
It's like a person looking at a chess board, after having been checkmated, shaking their head, asking how. Well, you have made your moves. You have taken certain positions on the board, all which led to your complete loss. You have lied about statements in the DEJANEWS archives. You have decided it is wrong to flame people _FOR ANY REASON_ and stated it, all the while flaming me. You have behaved irrationally.
You have been checkmated, and you have no where to go. Still, irrationally, you seem to be saying the game is still going on. No, it is not going on any more. People are dismayed at the irrational and stupid remarks you have been making. You have lost the respect of people reading your posts.
The game is over, and I'm not playing anymore. You have lost.
If you want me to keep reminding you and everyone exactly how you lost, then keep posting your snide, sneaky, and nasty remarks about me.
Dan Kettler reply:
However, I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of that, whether through your dishonest method shown here, or blatantly and with threats, as you did before.John Fitzsimons wrote:
There is nothing dishonest
about talking about
psychic attack. Perhaps you need to look up a
dictionary ? Look under the letter "D".
I know what "dishonest" is, and you are obviously that, not just from the examples in this post, but from many other posts.
Earl Curley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
SUBJECT: J. Fitzsimons was Re: charter: a.p.moderated
>John Fitzsimons wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 14:05:46 GMT, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >I think most of the skeptics wanted Dan to be the sole
>> >moderator so he'd stop griping on alt.paranormal.
>> Ever heard the saying "in your dreams" ? < g >
>> >It would have also been amusing to watch him lord
>> >over an empty group.
>> True. < ROFL >
Fitzsimons, as I quoted you in "John Fitzsimons " your writing indicates that you believe a person should not flame another under any circumstances. I have stated that I flame people when they have first flamed me, so I don't fit the definition of "hypocrite" since I am not making pretenses, yet you accuse me of hypocricy, paranoia, and a host of other things.
If the above remarks from you were one isolated snide remark, I'd ignore it. However, it shows a pattern of expressed hatred, a vendetta of yours. I intend to expose you on USENET, as a method of DEFENSE. I hope you understand.
I will ask you to cease all references to me, now. As long as you continue making nasty snide remarks that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation, about me, you will be considered a hypocrite.
Recently, you wrote a post, admonishing people to not make reference to "he said, she said," but you continue to do what you say others should not, again and again.
>> Regards, John.
>> John Fitzsimons
Earl Curley wrote to John Fitzsimons:
>Although I have have tried to be civil to you, I can only
>suggest here that you are biggest a*s that entered either
>alt.paranormal or alt.out-of-body.... (continued below)
There were some 31 people in the newsgroup telling everyone what
city they lived in, and John Fitzsimons strongly objected to the
fact. That was part of their custom, in that newsgroup, for a
number of practical purposes
On the 9th of March 1998, the original objection from J.F.
appeared. By the 11th, it was written that about 29 people's
practices were contrary to John Fitzsimons' desires, and the
message conveyed was that they wished John Fitzsimons to just
"cool it," as the expression goes.
Again, on the 11th, John Fitzsimons was adamant, insisting that
he was being inconvenienced by the repeated references to
people's cities of residence. He never got the hint from a large
portion of the group.
I wrote, in the newsgroup alt.out-of-body:
....this person, John Fitzsimons, has had similar behavior
patterns, here in alt.paranormal. We can only hope that his
mental state is temporary. He seems to have "flown off the
handle" lately, with repeated inflamatory remarks directed at
myself and others in alt.paranormal. All the time, he's been
stating that no-one should flame anyone under any circumstances,
and at the same time calling the attacked person a "hypocrite."
He seems to project his own problems on others.
We are warning you of alt.out-of-body so you may thwart any such
tendency for a war of words to erupt from John Fitzsimons.
He is so obsessed that even when offered the option for peace
repeatedly, if he would just stop calling people names, he does
not stop. He has gone on with 15 to 20 FLAME POSTS A DAY, and
when I once mentioned 15, he wrote that the next day he'd do
"better" than 15.
He goes into these fits occasionally, and the last one he had
over a year ago resulted in the same type 15-20 flame posts per
day directed at a particular person. The last fit of hateful
rage lasted about a month. This one has been going on a month or
so. We can only hope the pattern, here, of a one month duration
will repeat and he will "simmer down" soon.
Earl Curley continued:
>I have taken you to task for your crap and BS
>relating to both subjects and I question whether you
>have ever accessed anything to do with the anomalies
>associated with both subjects. You have tried to profess
>that everything that one does in these areas are
>subject to ghosts, negative enities, and everything
>imaginable and with that frame of mind one needn't be
>a rocket scientist to know you don't know your brain from
>a hole in the ground.
Dan Kettler continues:
It seems that, given the current posting habits inEarl Curley continues:
alt.out-of-body, he will soon be into his entities causing
everything mode, with ghosts, goblins, and demons under every
bed, and some possessing nearly all the people who are having
>There have been times where I readily admit you come
>up with proper information, but as I researched
>why, I simply discovered that when you were takem to
>task you backtracked and pretended that you were in
>John, after your last few posts I can only conclude without
>guilt that you do not know anything about the psychic world,
>astral projection or anything that relates to these subjects.
Well, one subject he's been on, lately, is how hatred relates
to "psychic attack," and he has shown he is totally consumed
in hatred by his posts, lately, and all the while preaching
I'd say he has something eating at him, inside. He seems
to be confused, with his mind running in circles.
I pity him.
>You are a fraud. Many of the
>adversaries who frequent these news groups, I am sure,
>support your position, but for those who are truly
>interested in discussing the area of anomalous phenomena
>without the BS, cease reading John Fitzsimons
>crap and use your own brains to decipher what is fact
>and what is fiction.
DK: You are right, Earl
Subject: Re: SUGGESTION: peace in alt.paranormal
[Subscribe to alt.paranormal]
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com (John Fitzsimons) wrote:
> On 25 Apr 1998 14:51:46 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles
> Gregory) wrote:
> >John Fitzsimons (email@example.com) wrote:
>>>To stop flame wars the following is required :
>>> (1) Flame threads to cease.
Then why don't you stop flaming? You wrote, and I have it quoted,
that one should not flame anyone for any reason. Yet, you continue
to do so. I say it's okay as a retaliation, but you say not under
My retaliation for your flames, my exposure of your flames as lies,
can be expected, but yours are contrary to your own statement on these web pages.
> Bruce [aka Dan Kettler] is trying to make a
> fool of Charles by blatantly doing the latter.
You, John Fitzsimons, are making a fool of yourself constantly.
I have not tried to make a fool of Charles, and you stating it
again and again will not get him, or anyone with sense, to believe
it. Instead, you will again and again show yourself to be a
manipulative and power hungry fool.
I have tried to explain to you, John Fitzsimons, that you are
accomplishing nothing by continuing to increase conflict in
the newsgroup, alt.paranormal.
Apparently, you have shown very clearly your objectives.
1. To "divide and conquer"
by stating that you believed
I was belittling Charles Gregory. I was not, and he
knows it, and made it quite clear in a posting.
of getting what you wanted, you showed yourself
to those you would best befriend, as manipulative and sneaky.
They did not say that, but I strongly suspect it.
2. To intimidate me
into posting as you please.
I don't care if you post 1000 per day of nasty
remarks about me. I will post about the FAQ, and
about the CHARTER, and SENSE HONESTY CIVILITY and
INTELLIGENT LIFE ON THE NET, and until I'm tired of it
the repeated requests for people to stop flaming.
If attacked by your friend,
again I will continue to make known the appropriate URL, no
matter how many times you post your demands.
of getting what you wanted, you have shown yourself
to be a control freak, one who makes demands and ultimatums.
3. To persuade others
that I am alone, and all others
think everything I do is wrong. This has not happened.
You seem to have persuaded people that you write
you try to convey, when shown as false, shows you
as false. That is your "accomplishment."
4. To enlist others
on your side. What you have, instead
accomplished is to bring your "friends" to your aid,
all of them the most degenerate and hostile posters in
alt.paranormal. But then, "birds of a feather flock
together," don't they?
So, for all your failures, and all that you did "succeed" in doing,
still you continue to degrade yourself. I wonder why. Do you
hate yourself that much?
You are a control freak! Do you know that? Look at your
in alt.out-of-body. You insisted that others see your posting
habits as correct. Their habit there was entirely different than
yours, yet day after day you insisted you were right. That is
You have not been reasonable lately.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com (John Fitzsimons) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 1998 04:16:03 -0600, Dan Kettler
> <dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com> wrote:
> < snip >
> > The proponents of the paranormal, seeing
> > two FAQS and 1 so-called "charter" placed
> > by pseudo-skeptics, will mostly, in my
> > opinion, opt to honor the one FAQ and
> > CHARTER documented by a proponent
> > of the paranormal, myself.
> Incorrect. As a proponent of the paranormal myself I much
> prefer the FAQ written by the pseudo-skeptics.
If you read the text, above your comment, you will find that your
reply makes absolutely no sense, John Fitzsimons.
You wrote that your preference was a contradiction of my statement.
You are writing of one person, yourself.
For your statement to make sense, I would have had to write
that all "in my opinion, [will] opt to honor the one FAQ and CHARTER documented by a proponent of the paranormal, myself."