Where's the beginning of this interesting study?
Reader, if you just dropped in on page 3 from a search engine, and want to find out who "Mulroy" is, he was famous in 1994 for predicting an airline crash, so you can start from the beginning page.
When reading all these distorted facts and outright lies about me, many must ask themselves: why does Del Mulroy do this?
Well, it's a tactic, of his, to smear the opponent, rather than deal with the issues the opponent has raised. He utterly failed to make his points show as true about pseudo-skeptics and what they, typically, do in a newsgroup, how little, supposedly, people leave because of them, or about what a newsgroup charter actually is, (see "charter" below) and proceeded with his smear writing, one point after the other.
His latest smear is a distortion about a N.Y. Times Article that referred to me by name. This has been answered in the newsgroup alt.paranormal repeatedly. Using DEJANEWS, look up the subject starting with "NY Times."
For a link to the article itself, and the points referred to in the article, access this page.
DRM = Del Robert Mulroy
DK = Dan Kettler (aka Bruce Daniel Kettler)
On the 22nd of March, Del Mulroy wrote this quote from these WEB pages:
DK: One method of deception was a melodramatic reference to teen
DK: suicide, attempting to link that, possibly, to my WEB page.
DRM replied as follows:
Bruce, you can lie all you want...
...make an ass out of your self for the world to
see. It got you national print. Think about that.
People without a computer, an ISP, and without
an interest in the paranormal read about
you. Pretty profound.
DK: To begin, the "attempting to link that, possibly, to
my WEB page," is an accurate statement.
DK: He did infer it, so "possibly" is accurate. He calls it, a "lie" however, and compares it to the
DK: NY Times article about me.
DRM says I:
...misquoted <snip> [him] and deceivingly tried to imply on
<snip> [my] web site Bruce, is that I was blaming you for
DK: Since the statement was not a quote, how could it be a "misquote"?
I didn't imply that he
DK: definately blamed me for teen suicide, but that he was "attempting to link that, possibly..."
DK: My statement, obviously, means he implied it. What else could it be, but such an implication,
DK: when he accused me of toying with them, and then went into a rant about teen suicide.
And, to be sure this made headlines in the newsgroup, he placed this in the subject header:
< < < < < < BDK's shameful lie again.
> > > > > >
DK: The NY
Times Article written about me, referenced Ed Dames Remote
as well as the Stage Magician Debunker, James Randi:
"Randi's attitude has been so derisive for so long that he has become a
lightning rod for the fury and vitriol of the passionately credulous. A
typically incoherent attack on Randi's prize offer can be found on the
Web page of Bruce D. Kettler, apparently in defense of a clairvoyant
named Ed Dames."
DK: Nearly everyone knows that reporting by newspapers and other
media is not necessarily always
accurate. The word "credulous" is opinion, as well as "incoherent," though after I talked to the
writer on the telephone I doubted he even had that opinion.
DK: The points I made are not "incoherent," and the facts are provable, so there was absolutely no "credulousness" shown.
DK: In fact, one proof of the coherence of the
points, is that they had been debated extensively by a
significant number of people in The Newsgroup alt.paranormal. The significance of the points was
debated, but there had been no ambiguity about what the points were, so they could not have been
written with "incoherence."
"Del R. Mulroy" <email@example.com> (March 1998) wrote:
was: Re: Who's who?
now: FAQ CHARTER valid?
Del Mulroy wrote:
DRM: The Charter is null, and has no weight
DRM: to be called a full charter.
I, DK, reply:
I have proven it to be a valid charter.
1. There is no USENET authority that has...
a. in prior documents
b. in stated present policy
...contradicted that fact. They do not
either endorse, nor do they contradict
There is no USENET policy about it in
alt groups, so a stated charter, stands
or falls, only in the view of USENET
PARTICIPANTS and ISPs, according to
stated and proven facts, and their response
to those facts.
There is no USENET rule which states a CHARTER,
or the references to another location for a
charter, MUST be written at the inception
of the newsgroup, or that CHARTERS
would not otherwise be considered CHARTERS.
USENET recommendations, or guidelines, written
to show how a newsgroup, upon inception, will
get more people to participate with certain
procedures, make it clear that "SHOULD"
applies, not "MUST."
2. USENET authorities archived the FAQ, containing
the CHARTER, and thereby permitted it to be
distributed throughout the World Wide Web.
That occurred in FEB. 1998, and will again
occur with a revision, no matter how much
pseudo-skeptics scream against it.
Verify it by using a search engine, and typing
3. The founder of alt.paranormal, Steve Reiser,
has stated (this is verifiable via DEJA) that
alt.paranormal was founded upon certain
principles. He posted the Charter on
March 26, 1998, in alt.paranormal.
4. Many posters have endorsed, in public posts,
the no harassment from pseudo-skeptics
in a.p. principle, which is a policy of
the FAQ and charter. Their complaints
go back years, and this shows in
DEJANEWS and is sampled at WEB PAGE:
5. There is a group of "regulars" who
are not just paranormalists with much
experience in the newsgroup, but they
think and write logically and coherently.
The mere fact that a person has belief in
the paranormal, and posts in the newsgroup
for a sufficient period, is not enough
to consider them eligible to make decisions
about alt.paranormal documents.
Those listed were notified of this CHARTER
and FAQ, and discussion ensued, as well
Not all participated, but they were all
notified by e-mail, each showing the other
e-mail addresses in the headers.
The present revision is referenced below, at
DK: Anyone wishing to check out the following page, will find
regarding the CHARTER, which prove its authenticity.
DK: The advantage of the URL is that there are links to other
parts of the
page, and links to other URLs.
I had written:
DK: The paranormalists, mostly, agree with the charter.
DK: use of the words "false charter" conveys falsehood.
Del Mulroy wrote:
DRM: You have about a dozen.
DK: There have been many people posting to the newsgroup over
the years, who
DK: express the fact that alt.paranormal should be for the discussion of the subject,
DK: without harassment from pseudo-skeptics.
DK: I am writing of hundreds of people.
DK: The charter, to a great extent, covers what those hundreds wrote of.
DK: From the hundreds, I have quoted samples of this type of writing on my WEB PAGE:
DRM: There is double [the "dozen"]
DRM: [referring to pseudo-skeptics posting in a.p.]
DRM: than in your list on category #2 [paranormalists]
DK: And, from the above URL reference, we may see why more pseudo-skeptics
DK: in alt.paranormal than paranormalists. A number of the sampled quotes show
DK: DISCOURAGEMENT FROM POSTING by paranormalists, because the
DK: newsgroup is overrun by PSEUDO-SKEPTICS. Even you report this overrunning
DK: with your "double that," above.
Del Mulroy wrote:
DRM: The majority in this group disagrees saying the
DRM: charter is null in alt. groups which I have read
DRM: is true.
DK: "alt" groups do not have official voting. Your "majority,"
DK: of pseudo-skeptics, does not relate to USENET policy.
DK: I have the facts at:
DK: ...with links to the appropriate sites to prove my point.
DRM: ...most of this usenet group [mainly pseudo-skeptics - DK]
DRM: disagrees with your attempt to take control of this group...
DK: I don't seek "control." Those who read and post to alt.paranormal
DK: freedom to not have to read denigrating and harassing posts directed at them,
DK: demanding proof.
DK: Pseudo-skeptics who want to take control of alt.paranormal
DO NOT COUNT
DK: in the writing of a FAQ or CHARTER, and no USENET rule counters that fact.
DRM: ...and that a charter is null and void in alt groups
DK: A charter cannot be "null and void." There is no authority
that says it is "null
DK: and void" only pseudo-skeptic propaganda on USENET, you read. No-one
DK: has outlawed CHARTERS in alt groups.
DK: Your writing is nonsense.
DRM: I suggest you start a moderated news group...
DK: alt.paranormal could be changed to a moderated
DK: but it's not necessary. In 1996, Steve Reiser, founder of a.p.,
DK: suggested it be moderated.
DRM: "Extreme Skeptics"...
DRM: attack pro-paranormal people...
DRM: maybe three posters...
DK: There are many more than three posters who
attack. Two years ago you wrote
DK: that you had studied the matter 4 months, and typically "skeptics" attacked "anyone
DK: who claimed psychic talents."
Even as late as July 25, 1998 Del was writing this about me:
alt.paranormal the USENET newsgroup
Won't be long and he will be another awarded
kook of something in no time. What amazes me
is that another national reporter hasn't picked up on him yet, or even a skeptical magazine of
some sort. There just isn't justice in this world anymore.
DK: He writes mistakenly, again, that he perceives people mocking his legs:
DRM: ...tell me how much you and Bruce
have made it
a point to mock my medical condition.
DK: Above refers to Luci (aka Lucianarchy) who, also, never "mock
[ed] [his] medical condition."
DK: For more on this, read DEJANEWS
to find past writings that
were posted the USENET newsgroup, alt.paranormal.
Back to page 1 click here for next page 4