The Fitzsimons pages by Dan Kettler
Updated Feb. 13, 2001
For postings found on other pages of this URL 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.
Does John Fitzsimons make sense?
Does John write honestly?
Is John civil?
June 7, 2000 update with posts
from me to alt.folklore.ghost-stories. To get a view
of John Fitzsimons from the perspective of quite a few other people, read these. Links to the
DEJA archived writing of other people is included in these posts.
See what John Fitzsimons did in
and what Earl Curley and I posted
to that newsgroup about him.
This is my opinion about the objectives
of John Fitzsimons in alt.paranormal,
and the DEJA archives show what he actually accomplished.
Self-defensive methods on the INTERNET:
This is for readers looking at these pages to learn how they may incorporporate the methods shown as self-defense on the INTERNET. First, there is this page about flaming in a way that does not destroy the newsgroups. Second, there is the page about INTELLIGENT LIFE ON THE NET, and the theory behind the use of WEB PAGES for self-defense. Third, there is the following method of posting which avoids the back-and-forth bickering, and the waste of time involved in continually writing new posts:
During 1999, the assault continued from John Fitzsimons, 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 every third day. Be sure you are not cited for "spam." Repeat the postings after number 10 is finished by commencing again with number 1, 30 days later. Do this until the attacks stop.
Note: The use of > > marks, and changing
of the number of them, indicates
a different writer. Some writing shows the person's initials, and with
other writing just the > > marks change.
Note: Some of the wording of Dan Kettler
has been modified from what was
in the original Usenet postings.
Note: One may verify the existence, and
the full context, of quotes by accessing
the Dejanews Archives, and selecting "power search" after noting dates,
exact wording which may be copied and pasted, or other data. Some of
the references contain links that will bring the reader directly to the text.
Subject: John Fitzsimons... <snip> was: Re: What has this Wollman done?
John Fitzsimons email@example.com wrote:
> On 8 Mar 1999 16:42:23 GMT, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
EHW > >They believe that because I am logical and tell the truth that
EHW > >somehow is "mean."
JF: > I would expect that your constantly posting your astrology posts
JF: > the alt.paranormal newsgroup has something to do with it.
DK: It seems, you don't even "suspect" it.
DK: Let the reader examine DEJANEWS, and
DK: determine that: http://www.dejanews.com
DK: It's obvious that Wollmann receives the same lying abusive
DK: attacks whether he posts to alt.paranormal, or just alt.astrology.
DK: Let the reader, if interested, look at my rebuttals and proof
DK: of Fitzsimons' repeated misinformation and word twisting
DK: defamation in DEJANEWS, as well as quotes on these
DK: I have read and exchanged posts with Fitzsimons, off
DK: and on, for 4 years. I have recorded the word-twisting,
DK: and noted his level of intelligence, high enough (along with
DK: extensive experience on Usenet) that he would likely not
DK: "suspect" something so ridiculous.
There is more to be noted about Fitzsimons, with accurate quotes
on these web pages.
alt.paranormal has one complete FAQ
(question and answer
format--with comprehensive list of questions) with one principal
author (revised and commented upon by others) who actually
believes there is such a thing as the paranormal. In my
view, that fact is meaningful.
In that FAQ, there is no forbidding of astrology posts
Indeed, astrology is paranormal in nature.
> When I asked why you did this you didn't even have the courtesy
> to reply.
Not replying to someone like yourself, who shows hardly any
respect for intelligent and rational people, is, in my opinion,
You are not worthy of a reply to most of the ridiculous statements
and questions you put forth. You have shown yourself to be
"buddies" with the most degenerate writers on Usenet, and you
show little other apparent purpose than to defame anyone who
would dare disagree with your views.
I did answer your question, however. Many of the same people
write denegrating remarks --lies-- about proponents of
the paranormal in alt.astrology and alt.paranormal, for
no other apparent reason other than they wish to express
their bigotry about proponents.
Self-respecting people respect other people who are worthy
of it. I do not respect you Fitzsimons because you have revealed,
again and again, that you are, basicly, dishonest. Usually,
you show little or no regard for others except to the extent
that they serve your self-centered purposes.
I serve none of your purposes, hence you have written lies
about me, and attempted to publicly denegrate my character.
The same is true of your writing about Lucianarchy and Edmond
> Posting your [Edmond
Wollmann] post to :
> ...think that people
> who see things differently to yourself are automatically "net
You are a word-twisting, spin-doctor, Fitzsimons. You have been
net long enough to know what a difference of opinion is, and how
that compares to lying abuse and obvious harassment. You are,
again, as usual, writing falsehood.
> ...if that is what you believe then that would appear
> be a very intolerant stance...
You know that is not what he believes.
Spin doctors, like
yourself, pose these suppositions as questions to avoid the
liar label, all the while conveying the false impression
that the statements are probably fact.
Only a person capable of respecting others worthy of such, can,
in depth, respect themselves, since all beings are, in essence, a
unity of consciousness.
We can only respect the essence of every being, and if
we don't like what the outward consciousness of some beings
produce, we created it at some level. So, I understand
that we each create even the (unprovoked) attacks and
defamation of us. Edmond Wollmann would probably agree
However, life is filled with paradox, so the responsibity
is upon us all to bring light to the world, and to speak
truth. You are not a truth teller, however.
Your essence is respected, but the outward consciousness is
looked upon with disgust by myself, and others who have a
discerning spiritual "eye."
Your writing, about and to, nearly anyone who poses some
imagined "threat" to you, or your aims, is nothing short of
lies and attacks.
Though you have accused me of writing out of hate, Fitzsimons, let
me assure you that my purpose, here, is to expose you to the
readers, not to hurt you. In fact, I hope that you are helped.
My writing on these pages is, partly, to help you. Some day, I
you will read it, and contemplate the destructive, and self-destructive
momentum of your words.
> ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
> / Oz \ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
> \_,--.x/ http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
On December 22, 1998 John Fitzsimons writes:
major abuse has come from a supposed proponent
of the paranormal..."
The complete text is is the Dejanews archives, and may be linked here.
He is writing that the "major abuse" in the newsgroup alt.paranormal
comes from me, supposedly,
not from the Pseudo-Skeptic fanatics. This "supposed proponent" reference is ridiculous.
I had written nothing about John Fitzsimons in months, yet he continued
this attack about me. In
complete context, he was writing about abuse of anyone toward anyone, not just him. The obvious
fact, and I believe it is obvious to him, is that "the major abuse" has come from fanatics.
For all false accusations about me, Dan Kettler, the truth of the matter
can be ascertained by following
He also wrote that I have...
to the trouble to devote
(web) hate pages to me....
Obviously, from the above, he's referring to me, since he mentioned
"Bruce," and referred to no other person
about such web pages.
This page, and others, are defense and exposure, not expressions of hatred.
FITZSIMONS WRITES TO Lucianarchy
Maybe there is something about
that upsets people ?
There is something about Luci.
She writes the
truth. You, Fitzsimons, write lies.
From: dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com (Dan Kettler)
Subject: John Fitzsimons
(Exchange was during April 1998 and full text is in the USENET archives Use "power search")
>< snip >
>>More on this habitual liar, and non-stop flamer, at:
<reference snipped out by John Fitzsimons>> Yet another good example of "Sense, Honesty and
>> ...That is a good example of civility ? Ha ha ha.
Dan Kettler wrote:
You seem not to comprehend, evidently, that by showing what1. I am uncivil, at times, towards people who
civility is not, that one can see what civility is.
Allow me to try to help you understand. Perhaps I was not clear
2. By pointing to my uncivility, like placing your name
in a header because you had been uncivil to me, I
can point out that not putting your name in a header
would have been civil. Thus the lesson of what is
civil would be shown.
Yes, civility is understood when I write about Jon Walsh, and it is
also shown with Intelligent Life on the Net.
My example shows what Jon Walsh is not: honest.
That way people can see what real honesty would be like, by seeing what not to do. Likewise, Jon Walsh shows lack of sense. One can readily see that by avoiding the type of irrational writing he places, they can write intelligently.
You don't get it, do you?
Intelligent Life On The Net shows what unintelligent life is: an absense of sense, honesty, and civility.
Note your name in the header. I remember you objecting to having
your name in headers. You don't like that. I'm being uncivil.
That's an example of lack of civility on the net.
I have, many times, written that I am not necessarily civil toward
people who are uncivil toward me. 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
Habitually, you have written uneducated criticism of my writing.
I believe that disagreement with myself or anyone is fine, but you have
been in harassing mode. I wrote of your 15 posts one day, and you sarcastically commented that the next day you would make it more.
You have recently been rather nasty in your public writing of me, with veiled threats.
I have no qualms about being uncivil with you.
Do you understand?
That is an example of what civility is, by pointing out my uncivil act: writing your name in a header, which you object to.
Now, back to the posting you seem to object to:
DK: "More on this habitual liar, and non-stop flamer..."
Jon Walsh is a habitual liar. Anyone
who pays attention will tell you that. Ron Bobo asked him the
question, in a post, if it were
psychologically possible for him to tell the truth. The fact that flames are practically the only thing he writes is easy for the intelligent
observer to see.
The fact is that a large amount of the flames and lies have been
about me. That gives me the right, in my opinion, to be uncivil while
writing against uncivility.
Yet, you question my writing about civility while being uncivil in my writing to him?
John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense. Here, we have an
example of writing, from John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense.
find the examples of your uncivility, John, one need only look at DEJANEWS, where "paranoid" is used in reference to me. To see your
lack of sense, one only needs to read the above. 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.
So, if you really like my dissecting the whole meaning of SENSE-HONESTY-CIVILITY
in my posts, with examples of your writing, keep it
And, in case you thought my writing of S.H.C. was about skeptics,
you can see by this example, your writing, and you not being a pseudo-skeptic,
and the others I've written about who are not pseudo-skeptics, that this is not about skeptics. That fact seemed to go completely over your head in
a former post you replied to. Now, quite vividly, you will have a clear view of what about a certain thing means. No, this is not about skeptics,
though examples from their writing is included in the series.
More on what
are on the INTERNET, access this URL:
>Note your name in the header.
>>Golly ! How right you are.! <snip the chidlish stupidity>
Yes, see, I put your name in the header because I know you object to that. It means I was uncivil. My point is that had I not done so, that would have been civil. That's a lesson in civility.
Gosh, you might be able to see this, after all.
However, I don't think you understood the part about how you have been uncivil, attacking me in many posts. And, I don't think you understood how my replying with uncivility, though uncivil, was a lesson in civility.
And, I don't think you comprehended the lesson, or learned the lesson,
all, you were trying to teach me to do certain things by threatening me with more than
15 posts a day of attacks on me, with words like "paranoia," etc.
> I remember you objecting to having your name in headers.
John Fitzsimons: Wow. Not only elephants have a good memory then ?
Dan: That's childish John. Is that what you would say when
you were 9?
Dan: > You don't like that. I'm being uncivil. That's
> of lack of civility on the net.
>>> Yep. Another example. Nice to see you beginning
>>> to understand things better.
Dan: Yes, I already understood it, but you don't seem to have that capacity.
>I have, many times, written that I am not necessarily civil
>toward people who are uncivil toward me.
John Fitzsimons: Yes, we have noticed that. :-)
> 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
JF: No, one shouldn't flame people at all. :-)
Now let's see if you can comprehend an analogy here, John. Suppose someone believes that people should not commit murder, and he/she tells people that. Then he/she kills someone in self-defense to save their own life. What then? Does that make he/she a hypocrite? They killed someone didn't they?
No, I'll bet you still don't understand it.
Let me try again. See, John, I have patience even with your
"mind." To have to spell this out like this to you must be some indication
to you of how slowly you grasp simple concepts.
I'm on the INTERNET, and someone lies about me. I call them a liar. To bring the point home, I show the person is a habitual liar, and that aids my defense. Am I to allow people to believe the lie is true?
How about another example? Suppose I read something about me in a newspaper, and it's not true. In addition to financial restitution, don't I want it public what that person has lied about me, since their lie had been public? Additionally, if they lie habitually about me and others, don't I want that known to make the fact that they lied even more believable?
Isn't that what you criticized me about doing, in my writing of Jon Walsh?
Well, you must might get it?
See, John, by calling me a "hypocrite" in this post I'm answering, in
addition to all
the other verbal attacks on my character these past few weeks, I am no longer showing
I am making it plain and evident to everyone reading this, just what
you are made of.
Habitually, you have written uneducated criticism of my writing.
Of course. Anything you disagree with is "uneducated", "not cool" etc.
are a liar. When you write of my supposed "hate" writing
and you have shown, obviously, that you never read it,
that's undeducated. I pointed out exactly what "uneducated"
meant. You are ignoring that fact, here, in your writing.
are repeated attacks at 15 to 20 posts a day. That
had nothing to do with disagreement with me. I was very clear
in my wording of the posts with the words "not cool" that this
was not disagreement with the allegations, but disagreement
with your non-stop flames.
The above two paragraph,
combined with the USENET archives prove
you are a liar, John Fitzsimons. http://www.dejanews.com
>I believe that disagreement with myself or anyone is fine,
So that is why you participate
wars and do your hate posts eh ? :-)
Further on in this
post you call me a hypocrite. You initiated
these flames toward me. I responded. You are the hypocrite,
not me. A hypocrite, as I see it, is the initiator of flames and
character assassination who says people should not flame, not the
defender. The hypocrite is the liar, while the defender who
writes the truth is not. However, I think you are still lacking
the ability to comprehend that.
You being the
initiator of this, I can say, with the evidence of
DEJANEWS, (www.dejanews.com) that you are the hypocrite, here.
You have been flaming me, and I have defended myself. You are
writing that people should not flame others, yet you started
this. That makes you the hypocrite.
>but you have been in harassing mode. I wrote of your 15
>posts one day, and you sarcastically commented that the next day
>you would make it more.
And, there is
a difference between disagreeing with a person,
which I feel is right to do, and writing non-stop flames in the
order of 15 to 20 per day as you have done.
The following you wrote, makes you a liar:
Did I do that ? Gee. Did I threaten
to exceed some "quota" that you have set
for posters ?
No, and you know that. You are writing deception here. It's
nasty remarks about me at 15 to 20 per day, not a quota about
Again, Fitzsimons, you are a liar:
If so then
why don't you limit your
posts so you don't exceed your own quota ?
Obviously, I'm writing about flames about me, not the
number of ordinary posts.
>You have recently been rather nasty in your public writing of me,
>with veiled threats.
you the guy who didn't seem to
understand what "nasty" was ? Oh, you
have looked up a dictionary eh ? "Nasty",
as in the comments you made about <snip> on
your web pages ?
So, you justify flaming me, non-stop, because you don't like what
I placed on my web pages about someone else. That makes it
okay, the way you "think." Additionally, you should
in nearly all your posts to be totally ignorant of the facts
surrounding this matter you referred to.
>I have no qualms about being uncivil with you.
>>>Is that supposed to be news ? You have no qualms about
>>>being uncivil with anyone. :-)
Anyone who's nasty, as you have been with me, I have that right.
>Do you understand?
>>>Sure do. :-)
Gosh, no you do not. You understand the fact, but the
significance of the fact goes completely over your head.
>The fact is that a large amount of the flames and lies have been
>about me. That gives me the right, in my opinion, to be uncivil
>while writing against uncivility.
>>>You admit to being "uncivil" while writing against
Yes, it's the same logic as defending a person who kills in self
defense, while saying one should not commit murder. Both are
Yes, it's the same logic as one would use in prosecuting libel,
and all the while doing the same thing the libeler did with
lies, only doing it with the truth.
On usenet in my rebuttals, which are uncivil, I tell the truth,
while exposing the attackers lies.
The difference between truth and falsehood seem to not mean too
much to you.
I'd say that's because you are a liar, obviously.
Saying people should do something while
it yourself. Let's see, that reminds me of a
word. Now what is it ?
Oh, you are so funny, Fitzsimons. HA HA HA!
Let's see.........looking in the Collins
Oh, the suspense is killing me. Will he use that...oh my god...
will he acutally call me what he, John Fitzsimons _actually is_
Oh, my gosh!
"the practice of professing standards, beliefs,
etc. contrary to one's real behaviour .."
On has to pretend one is not doing certain things. Since I have
PAGE /flame.html, and have repeatedly written that I do flame in
rebuttal, that makes me not a hypocrite.
Since you are always writing about my flaming and how I should
not do it, and flaming all the while, that makes you a hypocrite.
Your pretense, with your veiled threats, and your sarcasm to hide
the true intent, makes you more than a hypocrite, it makes you a
Do you get it, yet? Are you yet able to use your mind?
Let's see if
this "fits". You profess
"civility" and admit above that you aren't
"civil" at times. Yep. Looks like I found
the right word in the dictionary. :-)
No, it looks like you writing it repeatedly, makes you repeatedly reveal
what lacks in your "mind" - incapable of a good grasp of the English Language,
or of logic.
You can write about anything you
Many of us would prefer however to talk
about the paranormal. <snip> wounded
pride i.e. "He said about me..." etc.
Then why are you continuing to write nasty remarks, lies, and 15-20
posts of flames about me? Isn't it your "wounded pride"?
Aren't you the hypocrite, pretending to write about the paranormal,
only complaining about my writing about something else? You are such
a lying hypocrite, John Fitzsimons!
>Yet, you question my writing about civility while being uncivil
in my writing to him?
>>John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense.
>>> Read my posts a little slower. That might help.
I think what you really meant
to say was
"Here, we have an example of writing, from
John Fitzsimons, that does not make
sense to me."
Yep. That reads better and
makes more "sense".
No, John, I have written the sense, and your writing is nonsense. I've made that clear, not by stating it, but by proving it with facts and logic. Your writing is nothing but assertion.
>So, to find the examples of your uncivility, John, one
>need only look at DEJANEWS, where "paranoid" is used in reference
>>>My "uncivility" ? Gee, if I am found "guilty"
>>>what is my "punishment" ? I hope it isn't
>>>"To read more dopey FAQs, charters,
>>>and "civility" posts from you ?"