SECTION 1 of 4 SECTIONS
SECTION 2 of 4
SECTION 3 of 4
THIS IS SECTION 4 of 4 SECTIONS
Here, in part 14, we report the results of
our attempt,
and, as we find so seldom, in that geographical
region known as USENET, that most scarce...
Intelligent Life On the Net
As we enter into this realm that is sometimes called "cyberspace," we look at the life forms in this part of space, and then descending in our spacecraft and operating our sensors, we search and note that, though often the search is vain, through the many life forms with abundant insanity, illogic, falsity, and hostility, now and then we find...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
Now and then, there is such life, and we will report it when we find it, and then, also, as we report what we come across in our attempt, showing the UN-intelligent life.
Yes, folks, anyone, and I do mean anyone, can post to USENET, or put writing up on the WEB and in the search engines.
There's no screening process, as the sickest, most stupid, immature, and fanatical liars write, and most of it is garbage.
You have to learn to sift through it, wipe off the filth and get rid of the stink, and find what is...
Here in part 14, we have an example of obvious UN-intelligent life, with Phil Harrrison's repeated attempts to rewrite irrelevant details and, somehow, "clarify," but no, the details did not make his points clearer. One added detail did help to make a point of mine, that "conversion" is on his mind.
=======================================================================
Subject: Re: Unrealistic psychic challenges.
Phil Harrison /snip\
> /snip\ why should it [the existence of PSI] be
I, BDK, replied:
Phil wrote:
Since I have had discussions of my beliefs with other people who subscribe
to this newsgroup (both sceptics and believers) then I guess some people
must take an interest. I'm sure that several of the people who responded
to my articles here would not be happy that you consider them to be of
no worth or substance.
Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On The Net? [pt 14]
/snip\
PHIL WROTE:
PHIL CONTINUES:
Note that he [BDK] originally said:
> Does anyone of any worth or substance care
I, BDK, REPLY:
The intelligent reader can see, quite readily, that my response does
not mean that people will not discuss or take an interest in a person's
beliefs, but that they will not care, so as to attempt to convince
or convert the opponent as to why it "should be believed."
After all, the question was not, "what proof do you have"? Rather, it was
"...why should it be believed," and who else is asking the question but
so-called "skeptics"?
The general population does not go through a hypothetical "CSICOP clearing
house" to decide what to believe, so the meaning, logically, is "lead us,
the 'skeptics,' to believe." Generally, and quite obviously, we don't CARE
what you people believe.
Subject: Re: Unrealistic psychic challenges.
Phil had written to John Fitzsimons:
John Fitzsimons answered:
http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
Obviously, John "takes an interest," (your words) but does not "care
whether you or others believe," (my words). The intelligent reader can
readily notice that he is not one of those referred to, by me, as [not
of] "any worth or substance," lending even more weight to my point that
your...
Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On The Net? [pt 14}
Relentlessly, Phil continued, with yet another posting:
Whether it was about the scientific community's thoughts of psychic
phenomena, about your cult's interpretation of them, your own opinion,
or a combination, it is totally irrelevant to the point of
this part 14, and the thread of posts between us.
THE point is that your interpretation of my statement,
that I, supposedly, had been referring to those who have exchanged ideas
with you, on USENET, to be of "no worth or substance" is ridiculous, and
makes no sense. All your continued posting about the subject does not change
the fact.
Phil continues:
Their debate is not for the purpose of convincing the opposition, but
to make both sides of the issues public.
Isn't the reason behind these experiments to come up with convincing
evidence of paranormal phenomena so that the more sceptical scientists
will be convinced? You say the "purpose" is to convince the more skeptical scientists.
No, the purpose of scientific investigation is not to convince ANYONE.
It is to find the truth. Then the findings are reported.
Researchers are not CSICOP. Researchers investigate paranormal
phenomena, what the "I" in CSICOP is supposed to mean. They do not fanatically
condemn it like religious zealots. True scientific researchers are skeptical,
as any good scientist should be. They are not pseudo-skeptics.
Even if we consider your original reference, is it reasonable to assume
you asked ONLY why scientists should be believing it? It could be
why you should believe it, having heard from the filtered-through CSICOP
or Randi reports of scientists. You do mention Randi quite often in your
posts.
I had no way of knowing which scientists you were referring to. I could
readily recognize that you were in a dialogue with John Fitzsimons, asking
why "should it be believed." It did not matter what you were referring
to, your cult literature, the scientists, your own opinions, or a combination.
NOTE: all past postings may be referenced from DEJANEWS
http://www.dejanews.com
The interpretation you have above, that I, supposedly, consider those
in dialogue with you about the paranormal to be of no worth or substance,
makes absolutely no sense.
Public debate about politics, religion, the paranormal and many other
subjects has been going on for a long time. The predominant aim is to expose
the merits of certain points to the public, not to the opponent. It is
hardly ever considered, as a goal, to convert the opponent (ie. "care"
what they "believe").
PART 15
========================================================================
Subject: Re: Unrealistic psychic challenges.
>Phil Harrison >> If something /snip\ would require a rewrite of known scientific laws
I, BDK, replied:
>It does not require a rewrite of known scientific laws...
Phil answered:
Leaving aside the issues of whether a rewrite of scientific laws would
be necessary for ESP to exist, or if Randi could pay the $1.1 million,
the way Phil Harrison presents his points does not make sense, and they
do not lend any weight to his arguments.
BDK
===================================================================
Phil wrote:
Again, we have writing that makes absolutely no sense from Phil Harrison.
=======================================================================
PART 16
Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On AFAB?
Bruce Daniel Kettler /snip\
Phil, the "skeptic" of ESP has taken up mind reading. Most peculiar,
yes?
Phil writes:
The illogical part of your reference to their potential "angry" responses,
Phil, is that people from afa-b have been initiating angry and nasty remarks
about me in alt.paranormal for the months I was silent in afa-b. All I
had written, which brought your response, is noted in this post:
...as a comment upon the writing of Ray Karczewski > /snip\ lack of true intelligent
Phil, you just don't make it for my category of "Intelligent Life On
The Net." You definately fit the "UN-Intelligent" life slot.
Phil writes:
Of all you have written, this is the most nonsensical:
Additionally, you convey the idea that I am, supposedly, in some struggle
for the belief of people in the paranormal to bring business to my web
site for psychic readings. This is absolutely ridiculous. People believe
what they want to, and my business is not affected by the childish ego
struggles on USENET.
Also, my business at my web site is separated from USENET. There are
no references from my site, http://www.psicounsel.com, to USENET, "Skeptics,"
or any of the petty struggles going on in the USENET environment. To access
USENET references, one must add "/news" to the address.
My activity on USENET has a near ZERO affect on my business, which is
WEB based, and the overwhelming majority of advertising is on the WEB.
Your idea that my getting people to think all skeptics are bad would
be a method, of mine, to persuade people to do business with me, is ludicrous.
As if Phil Harrison had not dug his own grave deep enough, 6 months
later after seeing the repeat of this post on USENET, he decided to get
out his shovel, and dig even deeper.
The grave he digs is the for the ultimate death and burial of any image
he may have created through his pompous flaunting of a veneer of high intellect
on USENET.
>From: Phil Harrison /pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk\
>DanKettler
>/snip usual introductory preamble\
>Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On AFAB?
>Bruce Daniel Kettler >/snip\
>Phil, the "skeptic" of ESP has taken up mind reading. Most
>Phil writes:
Bruce has begun to realize...
> [Yes, he seems to know what I "realize"]
> ...that the sceptics posting to alt.paranormal
I, BDK, reply:
>>Do we have a conspiracy theory brewing here, perhaps?
...and Phil Harrison says:
>No, a conspiracy theory would imply that there were more than one
Interesting. So, you think there's only one person, and that I'm the
only one
From your recent posts, it seems you have been looking around alt.paranormal
lately, and probably noticed the fact that Earl Curley is being attacked
and defending himself, and likewise John McGowan.
Then, again, from your recent posts I can see you also have been stirring
up trouble, placing snide remarks in a host of varying subject threads.
Perhaps you think I conspired with Earl Curley and John McGowan to start
a flame war between them and the pseudo-skeptics.
It would also seem that the reference I supplied to you in these posts
months ago, a quote from the founder of alt.paranormal, Steve Reiser, would
indicate to you that this problem of hostility and deception from pseudo-skeptics
was going on in alt.paranormal years before I entered USENET:
Oh, I see. Perhaps you believe that 8 years ago, about 6 years before
I started on the NET, I knew Steve Reiser and conspired with him to start
alt.paranormal so he could have begun, what you suppose is, the only newsgroup
that pseudo-skeptics converge upon to attack those who would like to discuss
something the the "skeptics" don't approve of.
>>The illogical part of your reference to their potential "angry"
>You were not silent about them in alt.paranormal during that time though
My non-silence consisted of responses to attacks. The point,
something you repeatedly slipped from, in I.L.O.T.N. 14 and 15 above, is
my innocent remark that brought your angry response to my posting about
intelligent life on the net, accusing me of making trouble. The other factors
are irrelevant.
> Intelligent Life On AFAB?
>>/snip Bruce promoting his website\
The above is deception. My references are to portions of a website
that concern the dialogue.
>Phil, you just don't make it for my category of "Intelligent Life
>On The Net." You definately fit the "UN-Intelligent" life slot.
>Phil writes:
> In effect he is out looking for trouble. When this
I replied:
>>So-called "skeptics" have been bothering people in paranormal
Phil rants on:
>>Thankyou for doing exactly what I predicted. Perhaps my mind reading
You actually mean a so-called "promotion" of my WEB SITE by pointing
to a quote from Steve Reiser on a certain WEB PAGE?
Are you dealing with reality here?
Your sarcasm does not come off with effect when exposed to the light
of facts, Phil. My reference to WEB PAGES has nothing to do with commercial
promotion, as you attempt to, deceptively, convey.
>You may read his quote from here:
> click here for reference to Steve Reiser's
writing.
Are you so fearful of the exposure of the mentality of pseudo-skeptics?
Here is the entire page:
Click here for More on the mentality and actions
of pseudo-skeptics
>Of all you have written, this is the most nonsensical:
>Additionally, you convey the idea that I am, supposedly, in some
>Also, my business at my web site is separated from USENET. There
Phil replies:
>>There are plenty of references to your site from your USENT posts
Lately, the only two kinds of "promotion" that any business interest
of mine gets on Usenet is from you, and some others like you referencing
it continually on Usenet in a deceptively derogatory manner. The
other is in my signature file which references the WEB SITE that
is normally placed in postings. What I have done is in accordance with
the present-day standards of Netiquette.
>though. I said that you use your USENET posts to promote your website,
I do not depend upon Usenet to promote my business, nor do I
refer to Usenet from my business oriented page. I keep USENET and
my business interests separate. My point was that, except for some brief
test ads some time ago on Usenet, I have refrained from references
from both directions.
The POINT (Do you ever follow a train of thought?) was that I
do not depend upon Usenet for business promotion. This is
obvious to intelligent people.
The other point, (It's a point, remember) another obvious fact
to intelligent people, is that my references to portions of a web site
in my posts with you were not commercial promotions.
Another point, which I had not brought up previously, is that even if
they were commercial promotions, they would not be considered SPAM by USENET
rules, nor would they be breaches of netiquette.
>My activity on USENET has a near ZERO affect on my business,
>Your idea that my getting people to think all skeptics are bad
This is why it is so laughable. Anyone in the position you are, as having
read the majority of my posts lately, can see that they are, for the most
part, individually written -- not repeated. The time consumed in writing
these posts can only far exceed the monetary effectiveness.
If, indeed, my sole purpose in writing about so-called "skeptics"
were monetary, as you write, the posts would all have the same wording.
Phil wrote:
>OK, Bruce, then please tell us why you do it? Why do you post references
The obvious answer to your question, which is about the references
you are writing about and snipping from your responses is not only
written above, but is quite plain to the intelligent observer without even
asking. My references (which are the ONLY one's you have referred to )
are to certain parts of my WEB SITE, such as a page of links to sites that
report scientific research about psychic phenomena.
The other, in an example above, was to the writing of Steve
Reiser, and then often enough I referred to the writings of those who
are quite dismayed at the hostility that is generated from pseudo-skeptics
in alt.paranormal. A reference to their writing follows:
Quoting all of these pages, along with links that are available at each
of the pages, would be, as any reasonable person must see, ridiculous.
Phil wrote:
>/snip more web page promotion\
Another joke, right?
--
Here in "cyberspace," we search, and there are times when...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
...is noted. We always tell of such life when we find it.
It is useful to know of the UN-intelligent life, however.
Read our series, and learn how to see what is, and is not
HONEST
CIVIL
...and what does, and does not
MAKES SENSE
There _is_ valuable information and many useful ideas on the INTERNET,
but one must search with caution.
====================================================================
Here we have the writing of Del R. Mulroy,
This is a partial copy of the entire text which
http://www.psicounsel.com/mulroy.html
This is what Del R. Mulroy wrote:
Quoting BDK's [Dan Kettler's] 350c39e6.162096567 numbered
...and referring, directly, to the above quote of
We
were helping the "skeptics" by
Even out of context, the above cannot mean that I,
=========================================================
Our series is about, _Sense_, _Honesty_, and _Civility_.
Which of the 3 does this cover?
Sense
Why not honesty? Well, I believe that few people can be
This example concerns only an example of a lack of...
Sense
=============================================================
John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan)
Da> We were helping the "skeptics"
by fighting
...by first quoting me with "Da>" for "Dan."
...and he replied this way:
...the believer gave rational, logical answers
He acknowledged my meaning, that "hassling looks bad." He seems
to have understood what I wrote.
Further on in his message, John wrote:
True, in fact the idea of rebutting once,
================================================================
See the entire text of
sense-honesty-civility
and
Intelligent Life On the Net?
at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/news
PART 18
Here in "cyberspace," we search, and there are times when...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
...is noted. We always tell of such life when we find it.
It is useful to know of the UN-intelligent life, however.
Read our series, and learn how to see what is, and is not
HONEST
CIVIL
...and what does, and does not
There _is_ valuable information and many useful ideas on the INTERNET,
but one must search with caution.
============================================================
In article <356412a9.6398315@news.melbpc.org.au>,
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
> Incorrect. As a proponent of the paranormal myself I much
If you read the text, above your comment, you will find that your
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
http://www.psicounsel.com/fitzsimons.html
<snip>
================================================================
See the entire text of
sense-honesty-civility
and
Intelligent Life On the Net?
at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/news
Here in "cyberspace," we search, and there are times when...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
...is noted. We always tell of such life when we find it.
It is useful to know of the UN-intelligent life, however.
Read our series, and learn how to see what is, and is not
HONEST
CIVIL
...and what does, and does not
MAKES SENSE
There _is_ valuable information and many useful ideas on the INTERNET,
but one must search with caution.
============================================================
This is Del R. Mulroy's discussion on USENET, in the newsgroup alt.paranormal,
during the Spring of 1998. All statements may be verified through
the USENET archives: http://www.dejanews.com
See more details of Del Mulroy's writing at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/mulroy.html
was: Del Mulroy <neykomi@winternet.com>
later: Del Mulroy Neykomi@willinet.net
It shows a definate lack of intelligent life on the net when people
lie. This is an example of a lack of honesty.
=============================================================
I, Dan Kettler, wrote:
> ...How do you get that my tits background was
Del Mulroy replied:
>> you admitted you have a "tits" background...
http://www.psicounsel.com/tits.html
Del Mulroy wrote:
>> You admit in your own statement that you had
Dan Kettler writes:
I have never written that I had a "tits background for teens"
What makes a statement a lie, and what shows it is a mistake?
Lies are told when the facts are evident, and when in spite of those
facts being contrary to the statement, the evident facts are not referenced,
or they are known to be different than stated. A lie is told when
a definate statement is made, and it is contrary to the truth.
Mistakes are made when a person writes that either in their own opinion
a certain thing is a fact, or that to the best of their memory, it is a
fact, or that one has heard something, and is not sure since the evidence
is hearsay.
================================================================
See the entire text of
sense-honesty-civility
and
Intelligent Life On the Net?
at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/news
PART 20
Here in "cyberspace," we search, and there are times when...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
...is noted. We always tell of such life when we find it.
It is useful to know of the UN-intelligent life, however.
Read our series, and learn how to see what is, and is not
HONEST
CIVIL
...and what does, and does not
MAKES SENSE
There _is_ valuable information and many useful ideas on the INTERNET,
but one must search with caution.
============================================================
aka <Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk>sideaway@demon.co.uk
aka Sherilyn@my-dejanews.com
=============================================================
From: Admin <admin@theasi.net>
Here's what the web is saying about Mulroy the nut
http://www.psicounsel.com/mulroy.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...and here is Sherilyn's response:
Subject: Re: Who is Mulroy? a NUT
That page belongs to Bruce Dan Kettler,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
,,, and supposedly, the word "kook" as agreed by no more than 40 people
(out of many thousands who are on USENET) who object to my exposure of
their obvious lack of character and intelligence on USENET, is supposed
to be some "proof" of me as a kook.
Their taken out of context quotes of me, and misquotes, are supposed
to show me a "kook" also.
"spam" is a much misunderstood, and much misused word on USENET.
BDK
_________________________________________________________________
BDK won Kook
of the Year earlier this year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You, Sherilyn, use the kotM "award" (alt.usenet.kooks) as a method of
discrediting people. It's an attempt to make what I, and others,
write either seem untrue or lack sense, because the writer supposedly has
something wrong with him/her.
BDK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
More recently,
he got himself slung out of his
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You, and I, know that the above statement is a lie. I wrote the
circumstances of my leaving the group in a number of postings. You
acknowledged one posting. Nothing written by myself, or anyone of
that group on USENET, indicates I'd been "slung out." The fact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Above, another lie. I did not lose 3 accounts. I have quit
ISP accounts for a number of reasons. The infamous Compuserve account
is still retained by me. After careful investigation by the proper
executives, my account was promptly reinstated.
<snip>
------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes a statement a lie, and what shows it is a mistake?
Lies are told when the facts are evident, and when in spite of those
facts being contrary to the statement, the evident facts are not referenced,
or they are known to be different than stated. A lie is told when
a definate statement is made, and it is contrary to the truth.
Commonly accepted meanings make lies, not necessarily exact words.
A lie is defined according to the commonly accepted meaning. "Slung
out" commonly means _FORCED OUT_.
Mistakes are made when a person writes that either in their own opinion
a certain thing is a fact, or that to the best of their memory, it is a
fact, or that one has heard something, and is not sure since the evidence
is hearsay.
================================================================
Here in "cyberspace," we search, and there are times when...
"Intelligent Life On the Net"
...is noted. We always tell of such life when we find it.
It is useful to know of the UN-intelligent life, however.
Read our series, and learn how to see what is, and is not...
HONEST
CIVIL
...and what does, and does not
MAKES SENSE
There _is_ valuable information and many useful ideas on the INTERNET,
but one must search with caution.
Here we find intelligent life from Phil Harrison, pseudo-skeptic.
============================================================
From: Phil Harrison <pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk>
>> >...what is rational, and what is
Phil wrote:
>> Are you of the belief that it is foolish to make an assertion of
I replied:
>It is foolish to declare that one has absolute, and positive, knowledge
Phil writes:
Yes, I agree
with this.
>However, to state one can show evidence of something, such as life
====================================================================
Dan Kettler note:
Note how intelligently, how sensibly, Phil Harrison notes the difference
between conclusive proof, and evidence:
Phil writes:
OK. You should be aware
of the unreliability
That is a sensible reply.
********************************************************************
>The pseudo-skeptic mind-set, in my experience, grasps for certainty.
Phil replied:
Surely the point of research
is to strive for
====================================================================
Dan Kettler note:
Though I disagree with Phil regarding the possibility of assessing degrees
of probability, the logic of his reply makes sense.
********************************************************************
I, Dan Kettler, had written:
>There is the _either-or_ fixation. This either can be proven
Phil replied:
Well statistics are
important, and a
=====================================================================
Dan Kettler note:
The above reply regarding the importance of statistics and controls,
definately makes sense.
*********************************************************************
<snip>
I, Dan Kettler, had written:
I find that there is a difference, however, between people who are skeptical,
investigating, open-minded, and those who are materialist fundamentalists,
who's capacity for imagination
These are the pseudo-skeptics, who _call themselves_ skeptics, but who
are not skeptical at all. For the most part, they are sure that all
of the fundamentals of science have been discovered, and that any further
delving into new scientific theory must be false.
Phil replied:
There are many things
that we do not know about
=================================================================
Dan Kettler note:
There was disagreement, as other portions of the dialogue in DEJANEWS
will show, (http://www.dejanews.com) but:
1. Phil did not
misrepresent my writing, he was honest.
2. He did not
misinterpret my writing, he made sense
3. Though he
disagreed, he did not ridicule, so he was
****************************************************************
--
LAST PAGE -- 4 of 4 PAGES
Date: Tue. 14, Oct. 1997 19:47:27 -0700
From: Bruce Daniel Kettler
> believed?
Does anyone of any worth or substance care what you, CSICOP,
or others like you, believe? /snip\
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:14:40 +0100
From: Phil Harrison "...some people must take an interest."
Does "taking an interest" equal, to you, caring "what you believe"?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 10:05:00 +0100
From: Phil Harrison Here Bruce complains that I equate "taking an interest in beliefs"
with "caring about beliefs". Then he equates "caring about beliefs" with
"converting an opponents beliefs".
Later on, in this dialogue, you wrote of others intent to "convert an opponents
beliefs," so from that one can see conversion is on your mind. From my
other explanation, one can see my interpretation of your writing is correct.
This is what you wrote, in response to my writing about people not wanting
to convert others:
Isn't the reason behind these experiments to come up with convincing
evidence of paranormal phenomena so that the more sceptical scientists
will be convinced?
Isn't that the mentality of cults, generally, to convert people? It's not
the paranormal investigator who wants to convert, but rather the cultist,
so-called "skeptic."
> what you, CSICOP, or others like you, believe?
> /snip\ why should it [the existence of PSI] be
When I write that people don't care whether you, or others like you, believe,
the meaning, obviously, is that they don't care to convert them. The dialogue,
taken in context, shows that.
> believed?
Date: Mon. 20 Oct 1997 00:45:47 GMT
From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons)
> /snip\ why should it [existence of ESP] be
/snip\
> believed?
/snip\ I am certainly not bothered whether you, or anyone else, disbelieves.
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
...some people must take an interest. I'm sure that
several of the people who responded to my articles here would not be happy
that you consider them to be of no worth or substance. [BDK - emphasis
mine]
...is ridiculous, with the illogical supposition that people like John
Fitzsimons had been referred to, by me, as without "any worth or substance."
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:58:12 +0100
From: Phil Harrison ...I was referring to what the scientific community in general
thinks about psychic phenomena, not just my own opinions.
You could have been referring to what CSICOP or James Randi interprets
the "scientific community," as saying from what you wrote. My extensive
experience reading so-called "skeptics," reveals a tendency for them to
do just that, relay what they have read or heard from their cult sources.
I was referring to the majority of scientists in my original
post. Does Bruce claim to not care about the opinions of scientists?
Yes, I take an interest in the opinions of scientists, and I do quote about
research into the paranormal. DEJA
Does Bruce only care about the scientists that seem to support
his views, and not the ones that disagree?
I have quoted those who disagree. When I quoted Jessical Utts, and when
I quoted Brian Zeiler, they had quoted the opposition and their own replies
to that opposition. DEJA
And why would research institutions bother to do experiments
involving paranormal phenomena?
If they are scientists, they are skeptical. That is what science is about.
Those checking evidence for paranormal phenomena are skeptical of every
possible flaw in the controls, or they are not scientists, whatever the
findings may happen to be.
Are the people who research the paranormal regarded as not
being "of any worth or substance"?
You go from point "a" about researchers finding "convincing evidence" to
me, supposedly, not considering them to be "of worth or substance," point
"f" (shall we say) without covering "b," "c," "d," or "e" carefully and
accurately.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
Remember, my reference in my statement was to..
TYPE: skeptics what they do and why
or click here...worth or substance care what you,
and not to your...
CSICOP or others like you, believe?I was referring to the majority of
and my reference, if logic were utilized, would be where your
continuation of the dialogue would proceed.
scientists in my original post.
Date: Wed. Oct 1997 19:14:40 +0100
From: Phil Harrison
>> /snip\ why should it be believed?
Indeed, the fact that Randi could pay the $1.1 million does
not require a rewrite of scientific laws.
Additionally, he wrote:
... [PSI] demonstrations in laboratory conditions has not convinced
many scientists. Presumably this is why the known scientific laws have
not been changed to accommodate such phenomena.
==================================================================
...what you mean by "anyone of any worth or substance". I suspect
that you really mean "anyone who agrees with Bruce Daniel Kettler" which
is a rather narrow definition.
The above was written with absolutely nothing to substantiate the suspicion
of my meaning, as I've been most cordial to those who have been civil to
me, and have not expressed the idea that people who disagree with me in
a civil, honest, and sensible manner, have no worth.
Date: Wed. 15, Oct 1997 19:28:36 +0100
From: Phil Harrison Bruce has begun to realize...
...that the sceptics posting to alt.paranormal are not being
ignored by some of the non-sceptics. He is starting to get concerned that
he has nothing to rant about here. He knows that by cross posting to both
alt.fan.art-bell and alt.paranormal, he will be inviting some angry responses.
Do we have a conspiracy theory brewing here, perhaps?
Intelligent Life On AFAB?
...and the post you referenced made the point that one may find my "Intelligent
Life On The Net" series at my WEB SITE (which discusses "intelligent" life
from "skeptics," and unintelligent life from non-skeptics, so it is not
ABOUT "skeptics"). I also wrote that people can learn of alt.fan.art-bell
(no friends of Art Bell) at that site:
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:50:36 -0700
> life to be found amongst the denizems of the AFAB newsgroup.In effect he is out looking for trouble. When this trouble
arrives, he will start his usual series of rants about sceptics in alt.paranormal
again.
So-called "skeptics" have been bothering people in paranormal type newsgroups
for years, long before I came on the NET. Even the founder of alt.paranormal
wrote of this problem. His writing is on the first of my WEB PAGES referenced
above. His name is Steve Reiser, sir@srv.net.
Bruce wants you to think that all sceptics are bad so that
you will not be dissuaded from paying for the sort of psychic services
that he offers.
Your writing is far from reality, and these assumptions are quite illogical.
You are assuming that USENET is some major source of advertising for me,
and that my discussions on USENET are for the purpose of convincing people
to purchase services from me. This is, obviously, not the fact.
---
Phil Harrison
SKEP-TI-CULT(R)
Member #64-53649-969
>Newsgroups: alt.paranormal, alt.paranet.paranormal, alt.paranet.psi
>Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On The Net? [pt 16]
>Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:35:47 +0000
>
>Date: Wed. 15, Oct 1997 19:28:36 +0100
>From: Phil Harrison /pharrison@ramtop.demon.co.uk\
>peculiar, yes?
>
> are not being ignored by some of the non-sceptics.
> He is starting to get concerned that he has nothing
> to rant about here. He knows that by cross posting
> to both alt.fan.art-bell and alt.paranormal, he
> will be inviting some angry responses.
>person involved. Mine is more of a lone kook theory.
ever to have had problems with pseudo-skeptics in alt.paranormal.
>>responses, Phil, is that people from afa-b have been initiating
>>angry and nasty remarks about me in alt.paranormal for the months
>>I was silent )n afa-b. All I had written, which brought your
>>response, is noted in this post:
>were you?
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:50:36 -0700
> trouble arrives, he will start his usual series
> of rants about sceptics in alt.paranormal
> again.
>>type newsgroups for years, long before I came on the NET. Even
>>the founder of alt.paranormal wrote of this problem. His writing
>>is on the first of my WEB PAGES referenced above. His name is
>>Steve Reiser, sir@srv.net.
>>skills are better than I thought. Or are you just too predictable?
Bruce wants you to think that all sceptics
>Your writing is far from reality, and these assumptions are quite
are bad so that you will not be dissuaded
from paying for the sort of psychic services
that he offers.
>illogical. You are assuming that USENET is some major source of
>advertising for me, and that my discussions on USENET are for the
>purpose of convincing people to purchase services from me. This
>is, obviously, not the fact.
>struggle for the belief of people in the paranormal to bring
>business to my web site for psychic readings. This is absolutely
>ridiculous. People believe what they want to, and my business is
>not affected by the childish ego struggles on USENET.
>are no references from my site, http://www.psicounsel.com, to
>USENET, "Skeptics," or any of the petty struggles going on in the
>USENET environment. To access USENET references, one must add
>"/news" to the address.
>not that your website promotes your USENET posts.
>which is WEB based, and the overwhelming majority of advertising
>is on the WEB.
>would be a method, of mine, to persuade people to do business
>with me, is ludicrous.
>to your business website in your USENET if it is not to attract
>business?
For small sample of the writing of those truly bothered
by the hostility from pseudo-skeptics on USENET
click here
Phil Harrison
PART 17
neykomi@winternet.com
may be found at:
Bruce [Dan Kettler]
has mentioned in his own
words in a post
that he was going to continue
attacking the
skeptics because that would
make the pro-paranormal
people want to
leave here and
not post.
Del R. Mulroy <neykomi@winternet.com> wrote in article
<35152CBD.97B6026C@winternet.com>
Mar. 22, 1998 at 8:22 AM
message of Mar. 15, 1998 in the DEJANEWS archives:
http://www.dejanews.com
his.
fighting them. The more we answer,
the worse the newsgroup looks,
and the less paranormalists come back
to read or post.
Dan Kettler, was "going to continue attacking the
skeptics because that would make the pro-paranormal
people want to leave here and not post." The point,
which one may easily see, was that fighting "skeptics"
helps them. Our answers make the newsgroup look
"worse" and "less paranormalists come back to read or
post." There is not even a hint that I, Dan Kettler,
_wanted_ the paranormalists to leave and not post.
this obviously dishonest, consciously and deliberately.
Other posts in this series, or parts of the web site
will show lack of honesty and civility regarding Del
R. Mulroy and others.
on Mar. 16, replied to my statement:
Da> them. The more
we answer, the worse the
Da> newsgroup looks, and
the less
Da> paranormalists come
back to read or post.
to the Pseudo-Skeptic and then refused to argue.
:) That, I would think, is good for appearance.
The arguing and hassling looks bad, I admit
that. :)
in a civil and reasonable manner, then let
them rant themselves into exhaustion has a
lot of merit. :)
johnf@melbpc.org.au (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.
> prefer the FAQ written by the pseudo-skeptics.
reply makes absolutely no sense, John Fitzsimons.
that _all_ "in my opinion, [will] opt to honor the one FAQ and CHARTER
documented by a proponent of the paranormal, myself."
PART 19
> for teens to solve their problems in life?
>> tits background for teens on your web site.
at my web site.
This example shows a definate lack of intelligent life on the net when
people like Sherilyn (AKA Tony Sidaway) lie. This number 20 in the
series is an example of a lack of honesty and civility.
Subject: Who is Mulroy? a NUT
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:26:51 GMT
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:56:13 +0100
the notorious spamming kook of
alt.fan.art-bell and alt.paranormal.
I have examined and reported the details of the "spam" FAQ, and
Sherilyn often distorts the meanings, both on USENET, and to
Internet Service Providers when he/she complains.
own caucus that
was trying to turn alt.paranormal
into a moderated
newsgroup.
is that I was asked not to leave by 3 of the people.
Sherilyn
Dan Kettler's Page-o-Spam:
LATEST: BDK loses 3 accounts.
Subject: Re: Atheism vs Theism vs Divine Anarchy
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:54:12 +0100
Message-ID: <f66A5eAEArm1Ewt5@ramtop.demon.co.uk>
>> In article Dan Kettler
>> <dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com> writes
>> >irrational thought _are_ constants.
>> something when you have no proof?
>of anything, whether the existence of god, the non-existence of god,
>the existence of PSI, or whatever, without some form of proof.
>after death through the experiences of people's NDE's, and the
>reincarnational memories that have been verfified, is a statement
>of evidence, not absolute proof. <snip>
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
of eye-witness testimony
though. There have
been many studies
by psychologists in this area,
and it is important
to know how beliefs and
cultural background
can affect how a witness
recalls a previous
event. <snip>
********************************************************************
====================================================================
>It is not content to explore probabilities. It wants _proof_
and
>does not have an urge to look at degrees of probability, according
>to progress made with certain types of evidence.
certainty. After all, it
is not possible to
assess degrees of probability
unless a mathematical
value can be assigned to
le likelyhood of a
particular explanation.
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
====================================================================
>conclusively, or it cannot. If it can, they believe. If
it cannot,
>they will not. The pseudo-skeptic grasps for quick answers,
and
>will not entertain the in-between. That is why statistics do
not
>satisfy pseudo-skeptics, since they want more conclusive evidence.
statistically
significant experiment is
an indication that
something anomalous may
be occurring. It is
also important to assess
the controls that
are used in the experiment
to ensure that all
possible mundane explanations
are accounted for.
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
=====================================================================
of possibilities beyond what they have learned is severly limited.
our universe, and
it would be foolish to suggest
that there is no point
in scientific enquiry. <snip>
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
civil.
****************************************************************
================================================================
Phil Harrison