What did Del Robert Mulroy (DRM) write April 11, 1996?
...they are quick to attack anyone that claims psychic talents by:
Attacking the persons overall character
DK: Well, now, in a recent post, Del Robert Mulroy wrote that he does
not subscribe, fully,
to these old opinions, but who do you think he'd been referring to, in the above? Why,
"skeptics" of course.
DK: However, if you read his attacks on me, in the previous
page, you will see that not
only does he not endorse his old writing about "skeptics," but he does employ their
What was the Randi Challenge www.randi.org to Del April 11, 1996?
...simply a 27 year old APRIL FOOL'S JOKE and everyone
DRM: has bought the hook, line and sinker.
DK: Interesting, because lately his references to
Challenge are much different.
DK: > What did Randi have to do with this discussion. Is
he a dowser?
DK: > No. Well why all this writing about Randi in the earlier thread?
DK: > Gosh!
DRM answered Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:15:08 -0600:
Maybe he has spent more then 5 minutes trying to find
someone that can prove that they can dowse?
DK: I thought it had been an "April Fools joke"?
DK: What is the title of this piece from 1996:
DK: "Schizophrinia," hmmmmm?
From: Dan Kettler <email@example.com>
Subject: Mulroy running the PSF propaganda <was>
Re: Flagship, I'm calling you out
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 07:56:43 -0700
Neykomi Lee (aka Mulroy) wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
The above "X-No..." means Mulroy does not want his words
recorded. I did some references to his former
posts, and those references are at...
Just click, and they will take you to the
DEJA archived posts of Mulroy.
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> > DK: Del Robert Mulroy takes the pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
> > propaganda line EVERY TIME, including defense
> > of James Randi and the supposed authenticity
> > of the "psychic challenge." If anything
> > brands a person of that persuasion, it's support
> > of the BOGUS challenge.
DM: What would you know about any challange?
DM: You run when called to your bull*hit, Bruce.
DM: I truly believe that Randi has a challange
DM: that is for the world to take.
DK: Answer hard questions, like the one's that
DK: Benneth has written at, or linked from:
DK: Still unanswered by Randi, they about sum up
DK: the so-called "challenge." It's BOGUS.
DK: Benneth has first-hand experience with
DK: this so-called "challenge." That
DK: experience, as well as the experience
DK: of others, shows the "challenge" is
DK: And, for years now, you've been
DK: getting sympathy on USENET
DK: about this alleged "terminal
DK: Anyone who dares expose you, supposedly
DK: is attacking a "dying man." That's your
DK: In 10 years from now, you'll be
DK: saying, "Oh, I'm dying, and this
DK: man dares to 'attack' me."
DK: Yeah, for the newbies who don't
DK: read DEJANEWS www.deja.com
DM: He [Randi] has done more single handedly on
DM: exposing fake psychics out to take peoples
DM: hard earned money they any other man alive.
DK: He's done some good for the world.
DM: ...the fraud Randi exposed here:
DK: Clap, clap, clap, yea!
DK: What about the lies? What about the
public attacks on innocent people? What about
the fanatics he leads in these newsgroups?
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news
I can understand a person changing their opionions, but I have noticed writing, from Del lately, that lacks normal reasoning skills, and if you look carefully at the previous page, you will see that.
Last Update: JULY 16, 1997
One of the loudest skeptics in this news group [alt.paranormal]
is a man by the name of Mr. Dan Pressnell.
I have repeatedly asked Mr. Pressnell why he feels compelled not to
investigate a single case of documented psychic or paranormal phenomena,
DK: ...and recently Del apologized to Dan Pressnell for his earlier
remarks. Could it be
DK: that his reported terminal illness has him repenting, making amends, trying for peace
DK: toward all he'd had conflict with? Was that his motivation for the following:
Mar. 16, 1998 you, Del Mulroy wrote the following to Dan Pressnell:
Just saying I am sorry for all the bad things I called you,
and hope your 1998 will be filled with many short
DK: "Bad things" you called him? You wrote that he had "smeared"
you with lies,
DK: which he typically does, and which you have been doing to Earl Curley and myself,
DK: recently, on USENET.
You, Del Mulroy, wrote Sat, 21 Mar 1998 21:10:23 -0600
I admit that I had a hatred for some skeptics
here, including Dan Pressnell...
If you had a "hatred," then in the face of impending death, you seem to be overcompensating by begging for forgiveness.
I can understand that a dying man wants to make amends, and certainly I don't believe in hatred, so if you hated him, then by all means drop the hatred and make peace with everyone, especially if you are about to die. No-one should die with hatred in their heart for anyone.
However, if Dan Pressnell wronged you, and you exposed him, you did the right thing, so let it die, and just tell him you do not hate him anymore, but find his actions contemptable
It seems to me that your obsessions, recently, on USENET are misguided overcompensations. You may need more than a medical doctor in the face of impending death. You may be overly affected, mentally. Your writing shows some real defects in your thinking ability that did not exist one year ago. Just what is this medical condition affecting?
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:57:04 -0600 (alt.paranormal newsgroup)
Del L. Mulroy wrote:
I got word Tuesday that I have been diagnosed with a couple of disorders that will first take both of my legs through amputation in 2 years, and then I will die in 3 to 5 if this is not treated and cured. The doc's think I am capable of being cured, but, they need to know the third disorder that I have first. It has been a great week. Because of my illness, I am leaving Minneapolis, Minnesota USA in a matter of a months time to retreat to place much more peaceful so I can simply live what I have left.
On March 21, you wrote this of me:
...filthy vulgar attacks against those
in this room known as skeptics...
DK: Filthy - "Disgustingly foul" according to the dictionary
DK: Vulgar - "lack of refinement or taste"
DK: ...and because I do not make "filthy vulgar attacks" it seems, as
I continue to read your ranting, that your personal problems are serious.
Del Mulroy, what I'd thought, before was your reading comprehension problems, seems to be a much more severe problem, now. I never wrote anything like what you report here:
Bruce 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
Del R. Mulroy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in article <35152CBD.97B6026C@winternet.com> Mar. 22, 1998 at 8:22 AM
Quoting my 350c39e6.162096567 numbered message of Mar. 15, 1998 in the DEJANEWS archives, which may be accessed from here http://www.dejanews.com and referring, directly, to the above quote of his.
We were helping the "skeptics" by fighting them.
The more we answer, the worse the newsgroup looks,
and the less paranormalists come back to read or post.
DK: Even out of context, the above cannot mean that I 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 wanted the paranormalists to leave and not post.
John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) on Mar. 16, replied to my statement:
Da> We were helping the "skeptics" by fighting them. The more we answer,
Da> the worse the newsgroup looks, and the less paranormalists
Da> come back to read or post.
...by first quoting me with "Da>" for "Dan."
...and he replied this way:
...the believer gave rational, logical answers 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. :)
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, in a
civil and reasonable manner, then let them rant
themselves into exhaustion has a lot of merit. :)
Dan Kettler wrote:
Mulroy, Bob Officer, and CFA have gone to not recording their posts
in DEJANEWS: X-No-Archive: Yes
Mulroy replied on Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:48:12 -0600The X-No-Archive: Yes headers have stopped the game that some played here of chasing me all over every single news group that I posted too trying to smear and cause trouble in unrelated newsgroups. Sucks that I have to X-No-Archive: Yes, but I find it is now mandatory. Since using those headers and not archiving my posts, I post freely and without incident in 50 some newsgroups. Things involving alt.paranormal are left here where they belong.<snip>I did the X headers as a result of you and Earl and what you did to me. You tracked me with DeJaNews through every single news group that I posted to and spread your agenda of smear and hate against me. Your actions mandated that I take control of that situation and the X headers were an option I then chose to use. I have enjoyed posting freely ever since without your hunting me down.
Dan Kettler comments, here on the web pages, not in the newsgroups:The readers may access DEJANEWS http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml and find, for themselves, that the above accusation about me is a lie. I never tracked Mulroy "with DeJaNews through every single news group that [he]... posted to and spread [an]... agenda of smear and hate against" him.
The fact is that I only wrote about him to defend myself, and that was focused in alt.paranormal. I never knew if he was spreading lies about me in other newsgroups.
On 3-22-98 DRM wrote in alt.paranormal:
No one can complain to you about your grossly designed page [these pages--color not appealing to you?] about me in which you lie and misrepresent me. There on your page you can discredit all day long and no one can call you on it. Hence, I took your web page on me right into alt.paranormal.
Dan Kettler writes:
In the above, DRM writes, "no one can complain" and "no one can call
... [DK] on it."
"Copy" and "paste" are commands learned even by the typical novice within days after
they take their first computer home. Most people use Windows or a Mac, and can "copy"
a WEB PAGE by highlighting it and pasting to a newsreader in seconds, or "save" it to disk.
So, yes they can, just as you have.
I write here, among other reasons, to avoid making a mess of the newsgroup.
People want to
discuss the paranormal, not read your personal vendetta.
You write I "lie and misrepresent" you. I have not lied or misrepresented
you. That's a wonderful thing
we have, with USENET: DEJANEWS. It records our words. Your lies and misrepresentations of me
are there for all to see.
You wrote that "no-one can complain" about my web page. You are,
aren't you? Now, if you feel the
"grossly designed" page has bad color, that's one thing I will consider changing. Do you prefer a dark
green background with yellow lettering?
On Mar. 21, 1998 Del Mulroy wrote:
...sick of the lame attempts to try to make me less of a person then you because of a medical condition that is taking my legs, possibly my life as I found out this week.DK: Del Robert Mulroy, you are not "less of a person" than anyone because of a medical condition, or for any
DRM: Let me know when you want to make some progress in alt.paranormal.
DK: I, and others, are interested in progress,
in finding ways to help make alt.paranormal
a newsgroup where people can help one another through the discussion of the paranormal
and how it relates to spiritual growth, with a minimum of disrupting influence.
is because of your proven lying attacks, and delusional interpretation
of others writing, that
I, and I'm sure others, will not consider you capable of any responsibility in the formation of
policy regarding alt.paranormal.
is for this reason that my response to your inquiries about me discussing
what you call "issues"
is, simply, that I will not waste time or energy attempting dialogue with you, because much of what
you have to say is based upon fiction which you have concluded as fact. One of your repeated
conclusions is that I am a major cause of disruption in alt.paranormal. Your rants are conclusions
and condemnations based upon distortion. While I acknowledge that all my actions have not always
been helpful, communications over the past year have helped, and others have been helpful to me in
made it abundantly clear that you have no dialogue to offer. Your
writing is mostly ranting
and blind personal attacks with an obviously closed mind.
most recent public self-righteous indignation about my references to your
medical condition, and
offer to e-mail me a picture of your legs, with condemnations of my supposed lack of compassion, is
melodramatic. You express deep hurt about my writing. I did not intend hurt, but you must take responsibility
for your feelings based upon misinterpretation. You must also take responsibility for your misguided, but vicious
attacks upon myself and others in the newsgroup.