This
page is under construction
this is section 1 of 2
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
How much of the above is evident on the Internet? Unfortunately, much too little, even among the most educated, and otherwise civilized of society.
The Internet is a vast wasteland of sickness and stupidity. This shows on the WEB and on Usenet. We could have a much more viable communiation medium if these three attributes were cultivated.
The use of, or lack of logic, is not a matter of opinion. Either a statement, in context, makes logical sense, or it does not. The point that one is trying to make is not the issue here. One can put forth a logical argument to make any point, and such logic does not, in itself, prove the point. It only give it more weight.
For the writer of the irrational to insist that his or her writing makes sense, or to ignore sane, rational arguments which point to their faults in logic, it usually leads the thinking, sensible, person to believe the writer to be irrational.
The irrational, or the illogical, has its place, and is essential for certain understanding of a deeper nature of reality such as ZEN or timelessness, but arguments, especially coming from so-called "skeptics" should be rational, or they are a contradiction of what they, supposedly, represent.
The "skeptics" are not the only people who don't make sense, and I have some examples of others here. On certain newsgroups, such as alt.paranormal, the irrationality of "skeptics" predominates, and thus the reason for such a large volume of examples from them.
Here in part 1, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense". This is not saying that the position of the writer does not make sense, but the lack of logic in the argument makes no sense.
John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan)
wrote:
Subject: James Randi,
Blah Blah Blah
Date:
26 Jun 97 00:15:29 GMT
Replying to: Wm James (spam@here.not)
WJ wrote:
The basic
premise of Randi's work remains
the same.
Simply offer some evidence and
you will
defeat his claims. If you can offer
none,
then accept the fact that the supernatural
does not
exist.
John McGowan Wrote:
You, or anyone else cannot prove, or disprove, God exists. It has been attempted numerous times and failed everytime -- no matter which extreme you use. Does that mean that God exists or does not exist?
The Anti-God Group has tried and tried to disprove God. They failed everytime. <snip>
================================================================
Following from BDK:
Wm. James, you have every right to disagree, and present your position of the, supposed, non-existence of psychic phenomena.
However, you are polluting the INTERNET with nonsense. I would prefer that your argument be logical. There are many logical arguments for the paranormal being non-existent -- no proof, but good arguments. Use them, would you?
You are writing illogically. Not offering evidence does not automatically lead to acceptance of the idea that the supernatural does not exist.
To eliminate the use of illogical arguments, which cause intelligent people to stop reading in disgust, try some of the following:
1. We have not witnessed adequate evidence
for
the existence of psychic
phenomena, and so
we feel that, from that
lack of evidence, there
probably
is no psychic phenomena.
2. The brain-wave functions do not allow for
the
transfer of information
in the same way radio
waves travel through space,
especially the
huge distances that have
been reported.
The above two have been argued on USENET, and in fact, I was once
engaged in a lengthy discussion about point number 2. It was with
a very well-educated and intellegent "skeptic"
and it was conducted with politeness on both sides.
Though I disagree with the above points as being valid proof of the non-existence of psychic phenomena, I could respect the arguments and persons arguing.
Mr. McGowan continues:
...Randi, and others, have attempted to disprove the paranormal and parapsychology, and failed. Their evidence is not enough to prove to everyone that it does not exist...<snip>
=============================
end quote of Mr. McGowan
=============================
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
=================================================================
Here in part 2, I will give an example of the lack of honesty
and civility.
From: Richard Caldwell
<richard.caldwell@OSF25.oklaosf.state.ok.us>
Subject: Re: "Skeptics" so-called, what they do and why
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 12:07:10 PDT
He states:
> > My only problem
> > with you is that, instead of discussing the issues at
> > hand, you us the
> > USENET newsgroups to advertise your web page.
I replied:
> I do discuss the issues.
Richard's writing, above, shows lack of honesty, and no civility.
A polite thing would be something like, "It would seem to me that you have no issues to discuss, and wish to advertise your web pages, and that's why you post." "Is that so"?
There's nothing wrong with the opinion, even if based upon theory and no evidence, but it is presented in a dishonest and uncivil manner. You do not state theory about a person in public posts, that puts them in a derogatory light, and state it like it's fact.
We have ARCHIVES, with records of people posts, and the above can be verified: http://www.dejanew.com
1. I discuss issues
2.
I do not advertise my WEB pages, for the
most part, but make reference to them as
part of the dialogue in the postings. The
references from Richard Caldwell of my writing
of my web pages, are just that, part of a
dialogue.
"I do know
some of the stuff *you*
believe
in. Psychics, telepathy,
telekinesis,
astrology, space aliens,
and probably
leprechauns, faeries,
Santa
Clause and the Easter Bunny to boot."
The above indicates a lack of civility and honesty, and is mostly ridicule from Richard Caldwell. It is a vivid example of the pollution from people deficient in character, on the INTERNET.
Yes, folks, the INTERNET is the place for anyone and everyone to play. From the most degenerate to the most advanced. Unfortunately, too many with character, with some sense of decency, are departing in disgust at the WASTELAND.
One might, in a civil and honest manner, state that psychic phenomena seems like, to them, something that they could not find real. That has the same meaning, essentially, as belief in Santa Clause being equated with belief in astrology.
Again, one might ask what cult I refer to when I find their patterns of thought are similar to that of a certain cult, written about on the following WEB pages:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: "Skeptics What they do and why" ---
or click here
See, unlike *BIGOTS* I don't automatically assume that the *NAME* "skeptic" shows a person is part of a cult, as one would if they assumed the color of a person's skin showed some derogatory attribute.
The above writing of Richard Caldwell conveys the attitude of a bigot. One could just as well write,
"....well, if you are born with such a color of skin, then
you must be stupid."
It conveys the same attitude as:
"....well, with a belief in psychic phenomena, you must
also believe in Santa Clause."
Either of the two, above, show bigotry.
Yes, folks, the INTERNET is the place for anyone and everyone to play. From the most degenerate to the most advanced...
You will find them all, but unfortunately, since there are no
real standards, and anyone can play in this playground, there are
far too many degenerates, people with no morals,
and no decency. The really ironic part, is that the "low lifes"*
are making such a fuss about the *supposed* "kooks" who are actually the
intelligent and stable.
The degenerates do not want their sickness exposed, so they attack with lies, and attempt to discredit those who would reveal their true nature.
*low-life -- a USA expression that means a person who's life
is lived like that of a degenerate. High
education, and even high intelligence does not
make one immune from this category.
Here in part 3, this example, we will deal with the matter of "civility" "honesty" and "sense". This is not saying that the position of the writer does not make sense, but the lack of logic in the arguments make no sense.
I don't INITIATE expressions lacking in civility, but I encounter this obnoxious attitude from people, for no other reason than they are BIGOTED, and look down upon people who don't agree with their view of the world. Instead of attacking *arguments*, they attack people with lies and ridicule.
The irrational has its place, and is essential for certain understanding
of a deeper nature, but these arguments should be rational, or they are
a contradiction of what the so-called
"skeptic," supposedly, stands for, or is trying to say.
=================================================================
Yes, folks, the INTERNET is the place for anyone and everyone to play. From the most degenerate to the most advanced. Unfortunately, too many with character, with some sense of decency, are departing in disgust at the WASTELAND.
On my web pages, I have quotes of the type of disgust felt by intelligent, rational people, because of the sickness that pervades USENET, even from the founder of alt.paranormal, Steve Reiser, sir@srv.net:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: "Skeptics What they do and why" ----
click here
Subject: Re: James Randi, Blah Blah Blah
From: Jerry Watson
<bsdwatson@spamthis.geocities.com>
Date: 1997/06/26
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> Wm James spam@here.not wrote:
> (now, we have a William James, with an obviously
> non-existent e-mail address)
I'd written:
> That's all there is to it, huh? Oh come now,
> it's more complicated than
> that. Randi is not the only person offering tests.
> That is obvious:
>> What test are you offering?
Wm. James, with the non-existent e-mail address, snipped
my reference to the tests:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
And so, here we have lack of honesty.
<snip>
>> Are you so much a meglomaniac that you...<snip>
Here the person lacks civility.
<snip>
... what "proof" are you willing to provide. Don't spam your
advertisments again, just state how,
The reference to the so-called "advertisement," that he'd
snipped, was the evidence, the tests.
Calling it an advertisement/spam showed
lack of honesty and/or sense.
Here are, hypothetical, logical and honest replies:
1. I do not wish to
read your references at a web site.
and for that reason, I am not qualified to continue
discussion as I am looking to remain ignorant
of the subject being discussed.
2. I am familiar with
the references, and do not wish
to waste my time, as I consider all the research to
be bogus. I've discussed this on USENET. Check
the ARCHIVES.
(no-one is obligated to repeat their arguments)
3. I do not have a
WEB BROWSERS, so kindly e-mail me
some of the references you are citing.
(I
could ask him to find a friend, or go to a
public library and ask for print-outs)
4. I am interested
in tests that others are offering
so I will look at the references, and then continue
discussing if I find some of the research
inadequate or not accepted scientific protocol.
The above arguments make sense. They do not prove that psychic
phenomena is not real, but at least they consist of sense, civility, and
honesty.
Subject: Re: "Skeptics" so-called, what
they do and why
From: Jerry Watson
<bsdwatson@spamthis.geocities.com>
Date: 1997/06/26
Message-Id: <33B29453.26E67389@spamthis.geocities.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.paranormal,
alt.fan.art-bell,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.astrology,
talk.religion.newage,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,
alt.consciousness
[More Headers]
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
(snip)
How do you propose to demonstrate your claims of paranormal powers?
jdw
============================================================
Essentially, the attitude of the writer, above, is that of assumption. There is no question, only a self-appointed mission to demand that I demonstrate my so-called "claims".
I prefer to dwell on the attitude, and therefore the mind, of the writer, rather than the non-issue of "claims".
The attitude, as I've witnessed it in others of this GROUP-MIND, is that if one discusses the paranormal on USENET newsgroups of the proper designation, like alt.paranormal, with others interested in the subject matter, they are obligated to prove their abilities, or to prove the validity of psychic phenomena.
This attitude is unrealistic, and it makes no sense. It has no parallel in any society of this earth we live on. There have been inquisitions, and religious bigotry still goes on in certain parts of the world, but this attitude regarding the paranormal is not prevelant in society, only within a cult mentality.
The New Inquisition (a book)
by
Robert Anton Wilson
More on this mentality:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: "Skeptics What they do and why" ---
click here
The use of, or lack of logic, is not a matter of opinion. Either a statement makes logical sense, or it does not. The point that one is trying to make is not the issue in this paragraph. One can put forth a logical argument to make any point, and such logic does not, in itself, prove the point. It only give it more weight.
The irrational, or the illogical, has its place, and is essential for certain understanding of a deeper nature of reality such as ZEN or timelessness, but arguments, especially coming from so-called "skeptics" should be rational, or they are a contradiction of what they, supposedly, represent.
imsgjraq@math.montana.edu (Kevin Smith) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dan@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
He wrote:
><snip> Think about it fool...
I wrote:
>>I'd like to take part in an informative and helpful discussion
>>about Remote Viewing.
He wrote:
><snip>OK, you're f**k*** idiot. How's that for starters?
Excellent!
You seem to have a problem with communicating without hostility.
More on this type of cult mentality at:
http://www.psicounsel.com
click at:
"skeptics"
Subject: Re: .......... on The Psychic
Challenge
(farce) (Re: James Randi's $1.1 M Chal
From: Colin Dooley
<colin@vlc.servicom.es>
Date: 1997/06/27
Message-Id: <33B7BE2B.3F54@vlc.servicom.es>
>>>Colin Dooley colin@vlc.servicom.es
wrote:
>Avital Pilpel wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Colin Dooley wrote:
Here in part 6, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense" or logic. This is not saying that the position of the writer has no validity, whether psychic ability exist, or not.
This is one of those posts *with* civlility and honesty,
but lacking sense.
<snip>
>>> The fact that *nobody* in the last 20 odd years has
>>> been able to reliably demonstrate any psychic power
>>> whatsoever in front
>>> of Randi should demonstrate something.
According to the writer, this alleged lack of reliable demonstration of psychic power, supposedly, demonstrates something.
There have been many tests of psychic ability, and the illogical assumption,
above, is that experience or non-experience with James Randi, as the one
testing, "demonstrates" something. It gives undue and unrealistic
importance to the role of
James Randi in the world.
TESTS:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
It is illogical to assume that a lack of demonstration "in front of
Randi" is THE criteria that tells
THE WHOLE WORLD the truth.
>>> Despite all the millions of people who claim
>>> powers, and all the books, videos etc, not one single
>>> person has ever demonstrated *anything* under tough
>>> conditions.
The above paragraph does seem to fit into the category of lack of sense.
It would seem it is a misstatement of fact by a person who has been fooled by a cult into believing it is not necessary for him to do his own investigating.
Misstatement of fact can be many things:
1.
blatant dishonesty
2. a mistake
3. brainwashing
YAHOO: (www.yahoo.com)
TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why" --- or click here
>>> The fact that *nobody* in the last 20 odd years has
>>> been able to reliably demonstrate any psychic power
>>> whatsoever in front
>>> of Randi should demonstrate something.
>>> Despite all the millions of people who claim
>>> powers, and all the books, videos etc, not one single
>>> person has ever demonstrated *anything* under tough
>>> conditions.
Let's make the, above, points in a manner that is
acceptable.
1. To the extent
of the information I have,
no-one has been able to reliably demonstrate
any psychic power.
(After all, no mortal knows everything.)
2. Could it be,
that my information is not
complete, and that you know something I
do not, and can present it to me, so I
may investigate it?
Here in 6, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense"
or logic. This is not saying
that the position of the writer has no validity, whether psychic ability
exist, or not.
All have every right to disagree, and present your position of the,
supposed, non-existence of
psychic phenomena.
However, certain people are polluting the INTERNET with nonsense.
I would prefer that
your arguments be logical. There are many logical arguments for
psychic ability being
non-existent. They are not proof, but by are good arguments.
Use them, would you?
I don't care what a person's views are, from the political right, to
the political left, or from the
absolute disbelief in the paranormal to the ideas of the faithful regarding
ghost activity.
The use of, or lack of logic, is not a matter of opinion. Either
a statement makes logical sense,
or it does not. The point that one is trying to make is not the
issue in this paragraph. One can
put forth a logical argument to make any point, and such logic does
not, in itself, prove the
point. It only give it more weight.
The irrational, or the illogical, has its place, and is essential for
certain understanding of a
deeper nature of reality such as ZEN or timelessness, but arguments,
especially coming from
so-called "skeptics" should be rational, or they are a contradiction
of what they stand for, or are
trying to say.
This is one of those posts *with* civlility and honesty, but lacking
sense.
<snip>
>>> The fact that *nobody* in the last 20 odd years has
>>> been able to reliably demonstrate any psychic power
>>> whatsoever in front
>>> of Randi should demonstrate something.
According to the writer, this *alleged* lack of reliable demonstration
of psychic power,
supposedly, demonstrates something.
There have been many tests of psychic ability, and the illogical assumption,
above, is that
experience or non-experience with James Randi, as the one testing,
"demonstrates"
something. It gives undue and unrealistic importance to
the role of
James Randi in the world.
TESTS:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
It is illogical to assume that a lack of demonstration "in front of
Randi" is THE the criteria that
tells The Whole World the truth.
>>> Despite all the millions of people who claim
>>> powers, and all the books, videos etc, not one single
>>> person has ever demonstrated *anything* under tough
>>> conditions.
The above paragraph does not fit into the categories
of lack of sense, honesty, or civility, It would seem it
is just a misstatement of fact by a person who has been
fooled by a cult into believing it is not necessary for
him to do his own investigating.
Misstatement of fact can, at times, *not* lack either
sense, honesty, or civility.
More on this cult (a good way to remember how to link):
YAHOO: (www.yahoo.com)
TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why" -- or link to this site now
>>> The fact that *nobody* in the last 20 odd years has
>>> been able to reliably demonstrate any psychic power
>>> whatsoever in front
>>> of Randi should demonstrate something.
>>> Despite all the millions of people who claim
>>> powers, and all the books, videos etc, not one single
>>> person has ever demonstrated *anything* under tough
>>> conditions.
Let's make the, above, points in a manner that is
acceptable.
1. To the extent
of the information I have,
no-one has been able to reliably demonstrate
any psychic power.
(After all, no mortal knows everything.)
2. Could it be,
that my information is not
complete, and that you know something I
do not, and can present it to me, so I
may investigate it?
Here in part 7, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense".
This is not about the
positions held, but the *arguments* that attempt to support them,
whether they make sense.
I don't care what a person's views are, from the political right, to
the political left, from the
absolute disbeliever in the paranormal, to the faithful regarding ghost
activity.
Whatever the view, and whatever differences we discuss, the absense of
SENSE
HONESTY
and
CIVILITY
is a major polluter of the INTERNET.
From: Dan Pressnell <dpressne@ns.vvm.com>
Subject: Re: The Challenge [3/3]
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:55:03
-0500
John Fitzsimons johnf@melbpc.org.au wrote:
> On 20 Jun 97 15:52:11 GMT, John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com
> (John Mcgowan) wrote:
> < snip >
> >This disclaimer takes all rights of the claimant for recourse
> >away.
> >
> > `EVERY CLAIMANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A
> > CONCLUSION THAT HE OR SHE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CLAIMED
> > ABILITY OR POWER. This rule must be accepted by all
> > claimants, without reservation.'
The above is at http://www.randi.org
> < snip >
> A "joke" right ?
> I wonder how many medical doctors would admit that they
> did not possess any "claimed ability" if they happened
> to get a diagnosis incorrect ?
:-)
Excellent logic, John! Testing for doctors should, fairly,
be the same as for psychics.
==============================================================
Below, from Dan Pressnell is also excellent logic.
I don't support the premise, which he's building upon
to support the logic, but *IF* it were so that psychics
were "never" correct, I'd then agree with him.
Right now, I support his logic, not the "facts."
I see no lack of civility in the post.
He is honest, in that he really believes this,
as far as I can tell.
He writes:
"I wonder
how many medical schools would stay
open if
their graduates NEVER got a diagnosis
correct.
Dan"
The premise upon which this was built, that NO psychic ever got
a prediction or finding correct, is much like a foundation which
feels solid enough to build a stable structure upon.
During the rainy season, when the ground (premise) turns to mud, while
watching the building
fall apart can anyone wonder why such a wonderful structure (what was
logically built upon it)
fell apart?
Yes, it's best to check the structure (fact) before building (logic)
upon it.
Here in part 8, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense."
This is not about the
positions held, but the *arguments* that attempt to support them,
whether they make sense.
From: keep7keys@aol.com (Keep7Keys)
Subject: The Keeper of the Seven Keys (short summary)
Date: 21 Jul 1997 17:28:47 GMT
THE VENUSIANS
A seemingly friendly
race from
Venus, who are
not as friendly
as they appear.
(more on them later)
I don't believe there is evidence of a race of anything intelligent,
therefore appearing friendly,
from Venus.
THE INDIANS-(native
americans) Holds
a great deal
of the power in the US
government...
I believe all the evidence shows the above mentioned
group to be victims of the US government, not
"holding power."
==========================================================
From: Flagship1 of the Paranormal <flagship@epix.net>
Subject:
The Skeptics are Missing Out! (Revised)
Date:
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:54:16 -0400
It is a lot better
to believe
in the Paranormal
then
to not believe in
it.
In what way is it better? I find psychic phenomena valid, as I've
experienced it, but I would
not believe just because
it was "better."
Why do you have to
keep telling
yourself that there
is nothing there,
and that when you
die you will fail
to exist.
I believe what you believe, that there is life after death,
but your discussion of it, above, does not have a point.
Is it about the subconscious reasons that people have,
that some may prefer to not believe? If that is it,
you need to make that point clear.
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
How much of the above is evident on the INTERNET? Unfortunately,
much too little, even
among the most educated.
We could have a much more viable communiation medium if these three
attributes were
cultivated.
How much sense, honesty, and civility is evident on the INTERNET?
Unfortunately, much too
little, even among the most educated.
We could have a much more viable communiation medium if these three
attributes were
cultivated.
Here in part 9, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense,"
"honesty," and "civility."
This is not about the positions held, but the *arguments* that
attempt to support them,
whether they make sense, are honest, and civil.
I don't care what a person's views are, from the political right, to
the political left, from the
absolute disbeliever in the paranormal, to the faithful regarding ghost
activity.
Whatever the view, and whatever differences we discuss, the absense
of...
SENSE
HONESTY
and
CIVILITY
...is a major polluter of the INTERNET.
In the examples of a lack of the above, I usually show
examples of a deficiency of one of the above.
With Blair Houghton, however, we have a perfect example
of the lack of all three.
================================================================
June or July 1997
Subject: Blair Houghton paranoid cynic
Edmond Wollmann <wollmann@aznet.net>
wrote:
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who
disbelieves in the goodness of human
motives, and who is given to displaying
his disbelief by sneers and sarcasm.
In this typically deceptive manner,
quoting me, BDK, out of context:
Blair P Houghton <blair@trojan.neta.com> wrote:
====================================
>It is absurd for people to ask me ...
>It shows a collective mentality...
>and for one person right after the other ...
>USENET KANGAROO COURT...
>the combined lot of you creeps who lie about me...
Bruce Daniel Kettler, paranoiac.
==================================
end quote
==================================
No, it does not show me to be paranoic, but rather for Blair to dishonest,
uncivil, and lacking
sense in his expression.
I reserve the right to be uncivil while writing against the practice,
when answering people who
have initiated attacks on a person's character and mentality.
My reference to a "Kangaroo Court" contains no hint of paranoia.
The slang term means a
mock court, and there's nothing about it to fear.
"Collective mentality," in context, is quite clearly about a cult
mentality, and not a reference
merely from my imagination.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: skeptics what they do and why
I have shown, in indisputable ways, that certain people
have lied about my writing. This is obvious, as the USENET ARCHIVES
(www.dejanews.com) indicate what I'd previously
written.
Taken in context, and considering the evidence of what I
write to be true, my writing does not indicate what this
writer attempts to convey.
So, we can disregard these accusations of me being paranoid, trying
to give that a cause for
my perception of what you, and what all those lying cynics do.
I'm not the only one who sees
you people for what you are. I have quotes of others on my web
pages referenced above.
Books have been written about this cult. Here's one:
The New Inquisition
by
Robert Anton Wilson
Edmond wrote:
Bigot=a
person intolerant of creeds,
opinions etc. other than his own.
(Webster
College Dict.)
Blair wrote to Edmond Wollmann:
If you
just go away you serve my world
better
than anything you can do by staying,
because
your paranormal nonsense is a drain
on the
time and resources of honest people,
and that's
not a positive thing.
You are, obviously, paranoid to assume that people who are
believers of Astrology are some threat to your "world" that
we are a drain on the "time and resources" and that somehow,
in your delusion of grandeur, (which goes with paranoia) you
are on some sacred mission to "save" all these poor people
from what you see as "devilish"-- like Edmond and myself.
[BDK]
Edmond wrote to Blair:
I asked you to remove
alt.astrology and this
would ensure I "went
away" from your
reality-but in the
usual cynic paranoic
fashion...<snip>
Yes, a cynic paranoid. It's so common for paranoids to think others
are paranoid. It's called
"projection." Above, wrote that I was, supposedly, "paranoid."
[BDK]
Edmond Wollmann <wollmann@aznet.net> wrote of Blair Houghton:
...not content with yourself as I am
and could not stand to believe that
perhaps we have different realities
and just prefer different things-you
believe that you must attempt to down
others to lift yourself this is
simple psychology reflecting your level
within the hierarchy of needs
and their resolution.
<snip>
Your anxiety and fear is evident-and your
contempt is because of your own disbelief
in your own power to be all you can be in
integrity-so you lash out to attempt to force
opinions down others throats-a sure sign
you don't believe in the power of them yourself.
Blair wrote:
You are a social dog, a carrion-eating
hyena.
A kunos of the worst order.
Edmond wrote:
...the level of your
inability for
logical argument and
objectivity. And
that you have run
out of other ways to
approach the subject.
Edmond continued to Blair:
...much as I would have fun making another
example of the simplistic and negative
attacks
from someone ignorant of the subject
[Astrology]
and person of which they speak, I think
for
the benefit of others and simple positive
and
constructive logic, I will let you go
as you
seem to be miserable enough as it is.
Best to you,
Ed
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
That's okay, Edmond, leave the fun to me. This post, as part of
a series, repeatable on a
regular basis, will be an education to many on the INTERNET.
[BDK]
In the examples of a lack of the above, I sometimes show a deficiency
of all three of the above
in one writing.
Here we have only one of the three: "sense."
====================================
During August 1997 in the newsgroup alt.paranormal
Subject: The Skeptics will never Conquer the Believers!
Flagship <flagship@epix.net> wrote:
> > There are many people who thoroughly
> > believe in the paranormal...
Man Halkowitz manh@cts.com wrote:
> There are many people who believe the Earth is flat.
1. people believe the Earth is flat.
2. people believe that ESP is real, and that there are spirits.
Supposedly, 1 has the same merit as 2.
Does that make sense? No. It doesn't make any more sense
than the idea, I've read, that the
existence of Santa Clause has more merit than the existence of ESP.
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
for scientific study of psychic phenomena links
Ask anyone which they would find most likely to be factual: ESP's existence,
or the flat earth.
Nearly all will tell you that ESP's existence would be much easier
to give credence to than
tbat of the flat earth.
ESP's existence, to a number of people's thinking,
*may* have, or *may* not have been proven either to
themselves or others. They don't know, and are
skeptical. Those same people will tell you *NO WAY*
on the flat earth idea.
click here for section 2 of 2