First, what is a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF)?
Read here and find out...
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
Scott Doty wrote
!newsfeed.skycache.com
!typhoon.sonic.net
Scott Doty <scott@pengo.sonic.net>
Message-ID: <kRcu4.24$%e.315@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:07:28 GMT
> > DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
NY Times employee wrote:
"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."
> To be clear: the New York Times said Kettler's attack was "incoherent",
> which Kettler claims to have rebutted at the URL above. Kettler's
> rebuttal consists of the following:
<snip>
> 2) The assertion that debate of the his "points" is proof
> of coherence, and...
That was not what I stated.
I never asserted that the fact
of the existence of debate is proof of coherence. I proved
the fact that the points were understood, and that people
did debate them with no mystery as to what had been written
by me. That showed my writing had been coherent.
To be coherent, a statement must be:
...marked by an orderly, logical,
and
aesthetically consistent relation
of
parts...
For the points to have been debated, they would
have to be understandable. If they were not
orderly, then they could not have been understood
well enough to have been debated.
The reaction of the many people debating them
shows all the points were coherent,
though not
agreed upon by those debating against them.
SD: 3) an example post, in which someone else states, "Randi
issued a challenge, yet he's avoided
acceptance of
the challenge by Dames." (Thus
showing that he
understood Kettler's argument
about the Randi
challenge.)
DK: Actually, there were MANY posts that
showed people
understood what I was writing,
not just fragments,
but the whole
coherent presentation.
See GOOGLE ARCHIVES http://groups.google.com
Just part of the many GOOGLE links follows:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_246004682
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_224165765
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_224874303
<snip>
SD: (3) assume that if an argument is debatable, it
must be coherent.
Any rational person, reading the 4 parts, will conclude that
they are...
...marked by an orderly, logical,
and
aesthetically consistent relation
of
parts...
They are linked from here:
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dames
<snip>
DK: No, not because it's debatable, but because it was
understood
(whether agreed or
not) by all who debated, it was
coherent.
SD: The problem, here, is that Kettler's argument about
the
Randi challenge is
fallacious.
DK: "Fallacious" is your opinion. Incoherence was
what we
were discussing.
SD: http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dames
SD: "...text that NYT referred to as 'incoherent.'"
Just one example of the lies, here, from this creep:
The beginning of this starts with point 1, not point 4.
DK: 1. There is a 1.1 million dollar bait, referred to by Pat
Lyons as
"...a prize that Randi has
long offered for compelling proof of
anything paranormal."
SD: ] 4. On March 7, 1997, Art Bell,
DK: It starts with point 1, not point 4 as you quote.
SD: Here we find incoherence as an antonym to "coherent"
DK: When you take point 4 instead of point 1 to start,
and write that
signifies it's "incoherent" and write that
the "conclusion
begs the question," your writing
is dishonest.
You have taken point 4, a conclusion,
and commented upon
it as if it was written without
a premise.
DK: Essentially, you are a liar!
DK: You PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS constantly
lie about proponents
in these
newsgroups, and have for many years. You are, for the most part,
low-life
scum.
DK: The intelligent, rational, reader may go on to the site,
in
question, and determine
for themselves that your writing is
blatantly
dishonest.
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
SD: The paragraph dearly needs a rewrite. One possibility:
SD: "Actually, both free-will and fate work together. <snip>"
DK: The above has absolutely nothing to do with what the NY Times
employee was referring
to in the article.
DK: I am very clear on the web page, which part is being referred to.
DK: Again, you show blatant dishonesty.
DK: The NY Times employee refers to...
"...incoherent attack on Randi's prize offer..."
DK: Obviously, that has nothing to do with how
free-will and fate
work together.
DK: Is you very life a friggen lie?
<snip>
--
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Lying PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC freaks "
incoherent " ( New York Times ) <was> Re: BDK's NYT criticism
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:24:07 -0700
Message-ID: <38B9A407.9BA5A6A2@psicounsel.com>
Scott Doty wrote:
> > First, what is a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF)?
They are liars mostly, and you Scott Doty, are
also apparently. The complete posts of
this subject are linked from...
http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
> Apparently, anyone who criticizes Kettler, no matter how
> careful one is to construct sound debate.
There was no "sound debate" from you, just bullsh*t!
No, I do not categorize PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS as those who
criticize me. That's a common lie from you creeps.
What a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC is, can be ascertained
by reading this:
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
DK: That was not what I stated.
I never asserted that the fact
DK: of the existence of debate is proof of coherence.
> In http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html, Kettler state:
>
> ] 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.
And, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT QUOTE ABOVE, I wrote that the
writing had been UNDERSTOOD, both for language and logic,
since the following covers both language and logic:
The significance
of the points was debated,
but they
were not ambiguous to those arguing
them,
so they had not been "incoherent."
I also wrote the above, but LYING PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC that
you are, you lied by omission. I ask you again, is your
friggin LIFE a lie? In my experience, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS
posting to alt.paranormal, alt.astrology, and
alt.fan.art-bell live lives that are, themselves, lies.
SD: I will apologize profusely if someone will tell
SD: me how I have misrepresented this statement.
DK: See the above, jerk! Forget the apology.
<snip>
> Remember, we are trying to discover why the
> NYT portrayed your writing as an
> "incoherent attack."
In this reply to your post, and the previous one from you,
I showed that it was not an "incoherent attack."
Both posts are linked from...
http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
...and they both contain relevant links.
SD: They do not indicate whether it is the writing
SD: or the argument that they consider incoherent.
SD: I claim it is the argument...
DK: I proved it was neither. See above URL,
and related links.
> > DK: Actually, there were MANY posts that
> > showed
people understood what I was writing,
> > not
just fragments, but the whole
> > coherent
presentation.
> That may very well be the case -- however, you provided
> only one, which is what I reported.
Your truthful look at the 4 points,
which is the crucial
issue, was all you needed to ascertain the coherence.
You are clouding the issue, putting up smoke-screens,
and just generally dancing around the facts like a
true PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC lying bulls*itter!
SD: He would be more effective in
SD: establishing coherent language
SD: if he selected the posts of
SD: others...
DK: The posts from me contain writing of
others, which can, in turn,
be
verified as coming from
those
others.
DK: It would be appropriate for you to
rebut points after
doing your
own
research...
SD: ...posts in which they expressed or
implied understanding
of the argument.
DK: I told you some did, so go look if you want.
DK: Most of the arguments came from
pseudo-skeptic-fanatics.
Most PSF,
in my experience, cannot
read properly.
It's either lack of reading
comprehension, or spinning
what I write into something
else deliberately, like what
you do.
So, actually, their reactions to
my writing don't mean much. A
few can read, however.
> > Any rational person, reading the 4 parts, will conclude that
> > they are...
> > ...marked by an orderly,
logical, and
> > aesthetically consistent
relation of
> > parts...
SD: No they aren't...
DK: They exist on a web page. The reader may
ascertain for his/her
self whether they are
coherent...
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dames
> > ...marked by an orderly,
logical, and
> > aesthetically consistent
relation of
> > parts...
They can take the above dictionary definition of "coherent,"
and see if it applies to the 4 points.
Supposedly I have to establish...
> 1) Why Randi is obligated to appear on the Art Bell show
...for it to be coherent. That's illogical garbage from you.
It's a matter of opinion whether he should or should not, and
my writing of the facts, with my conclusion, does not make
my writing incoherent.
You write like a nit-picking, deceptive, fool!
> > SD: The problem, here, is that Kettler's argument about
the
> > Randi challenge is fallacious.
> > DK: "Fallacious" is your opinion.
SD: Fallacious is the factual state of Kettler's argument.
DK: I repeat: "Fallacious" is your opinion.
DK: "Fallacious" is not synonymous with "incoherent."
SD: Specifically, it "begs the question" twice...
DK: There is no begging of questions in what I
write. I state
facts, then I go on to what
those facts lead to.
It's all coherent.
DK: You may differ with me about the conclusions,
but that does not
make the argument
"incoherent."
I argued the same issues
in the newsgroups,
before, but I will not
repeat those arguments.
They are archived
in GOOGLE.
SD: ...leaving two premises to
establish before Kettler
has
a sound argument.
DK: "Sound" or not is irrelevant to coherence.
"Sound" or not, is
your opinion.
We were discussing
the subject of coherence.
SD: Now comes the intriguing part:
> > SD: http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dames
> >
> > SD: "...text that NYT referred to as 'incoherent.'"
SD: ...the conclusion was based on two
unestablished premises,
both of which
are in point 4.
There is no
reason to involve
any of the
other points, since
they are
immaterial to my argument.
SD quote of DK's site:
] 4. On March 7, 1997, Art Bell, on-the-air, reported a faxed
message
] from James Randi, refusing to appear on the Art Bell show.
Art reported
] he'd had telephone contact with James Randi and would again
contact
] him. . .
DK: There's nothing incoherent in the argument, or
in the writing of
the above.
DK: You may disagree that the premise is correct, and require
proof, but that has
absolutely nothing to do with whether
the above is coherent.
It's part 4 of a 4 part writing.
SD quote of DK's site:
] Randi's continued refusal to negotiate is shown by his not
offering to
] appear on the Art Bell show to discuss a procedure for testing
Ed Dames,
] with no counter-offer for another mode of communication since
March
] 1997.
DK: The above is debatable as to whether Randi's refusal to discuss
on the air is a refusal
to negotiate, altogether, but that
does not make the point
"incoherent." My point, obviously,
was that Randi would not
negotiate on the air, not that he
would never negotiate if
he had a signed application from Dames.
SD: Why should Randi negotiate test conditions on a radio show?
DK: This one from a point earlier than number 4:
The apparent
reason for this proposed discussion, in
my opinion,
was that Ed Dames had made public statements
that James Randi
would not respond to his offer to be tested,
while nearly
simultaneously, James Randi was making an
accusation about
Ed Dames' alleged refusal to be tested.
DK: And: Why is Randi obligated to make a "counter-offer"?
From the page:
... no counter-offer
for another
mode of communication
since March
1997.
DK: I simply wrote that he never made a counter offer.
You cannot conclude an obligation
from
my writing.
DK: In none of your writing do you prove incoherence. You
are just, in the usual
manner of denigrating fanatics
on USENET, full of
sh*t! You are a more educated,
sophisticated and
clever degenerate word twister than
most of the fanatics,
but you are still scum.
> > SD: The paragraph dearly needs a rewrite. One possibility:
>
> > SD: "Actually, both free-will and fate work together.
<snip>"
>
> > DK: The above has absolutely nothing to do with what the
NY Times
> > employee was referring to in the
article.
> >
> > DK: I am very clear on the web page, which part is being
referred to.
SD: I'm not so sure...
DK: I am, and other sane people are.
--
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Discussion of alleged "incoherence" <was> Re: BDK's diversion
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:49:05 -0700
Message-ID: <38BAFB61.AACE0235@psicounsel.com>
Scott Doty wrote:
> My original argument is archived here:
> http://www.sonic.net/scott/sheesh/kettler1.txt
DK NOTE: This is June 2001. The
last time I looked at the above,
the writer had left out the parts, from me, where I soundly
defeated him. What a coward!
The discussion, from both sides is archived
in a link from near the top of the URL page:
http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html
> I have been informed that one of my usages of coherent...
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?coherent
> ...may be without merit. Thus, I concede for the nonce that
> a fallacious argument is not necessarily an incoherent argument.
> This does not change my conclusion, quoted at the end of this
> article.
Interesting, and thank you.
<snip>
> ... so far, Kettler has not
> defended that text as examples
> of coherent language.
<snip>
Regarding the text after the 4 points, there is no
need to defend it. It's not relevant. I have 65
MB of material on my web site. Parts are not yet
carefully revised.
> Considering the close proximity of the second and third examples
> to the first, I think it possible, if not likely, that the
> New York Times journalists may have considered these
> examples as part of Kettler's argument.
He would have to be a "nitwit" to consider
the subject of freewill and destiny a part
of the discussion about what took place
between Dames and Randi, especially
considering the exact HTML coding.
+++++++++++++++++
HTML follows
+++++++++++++++++
<p>
This site holds past
postings <a href="http://www.dejanews.com">http://www.dejanews.com</a>
</blockquote>
Apparently, James Randi, again, did not accept Art Bell and Ed
Dames' offer. <blockquote>Randi's continued refusal to negotiate
is shown by his not offering to appear on the Art Bell
<br>show to discuss a procedure for testing Ed Dames, with
no counter-offer for another <br>mode of communication since
March 1997.</blockquote>
<hr WIDTH="100%">
<p>Dan Kettler
<p>
<hr WIDTH="100%">
<center>
<p><a NAME="dest"></a><b><font size=+1><u>A note,
from me, on prophecy</u>:
</font></b>
<p><font size=+1><b>REMOTE VIEWING, according to it's chief
spokesmen
recently,
consists of an ability to see the</b> PAST PRESENT and FUTUREand
RV about
the future raises philosophical questions.</font>
<p> <b><font size=+1>I will address two of them,
briefly, in this
posting.</font></b></center>
<p><b><font size=+1>1. Free will and fate</font></b>
<br><b><font size=+1>2. Alternate realities</font></b>
<center>
<p><b><font size=+1>FREE WILL AND FATE (This is a complex
subject, and
there are many explanations of how this work's, but they are quite
lengthy.)</font></b></center>
<p><font size=+1>With world prophecy, or predictions for individuals,
the
fact that people have free-will, it would seem to some, does not allow
predetermined events to occur.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Actually, both free-will and fate work together.
No
probable
future, in my opinion, exists without the ability for it to be reversed
with the determined and enlightened free-will of spiritual beings,
which
we all are.</font>
+++++++++++++++
HTML end quote
+++++++++++++++
> In other words,
> these may be the text that the New York Times referred to when
> they styled Kettler's writing as an "incoherent attack".
> The second and third examples may be found here:
> http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dest
> Which I quote:
>
> 2)
> ] Actually, both free-will and fate work together. <snip>
First, free will and fate have nothing to do with the
Randi challenge.
Second, when one looks at the web page, they can see a
clear separation between the Randi/Dames discussion, and
the discussion about free will and fate. There's a
different subject shown at the beginning of the
article about free-will and fate.
It may be seen here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml#dames
...or by viewing the above quoted HTML in one's web browser.
> -Scott
--
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news