This page is under construction
honesty trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility politeness
This page is under construction
THIS IS section 2 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.
We could have a much more viable communiation medium if these three
attributes were cultivated.
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.
Here in part 11, this example, we will deal with the matter of "honesty,"
just one of the 3.
================================================================
From: empath@psynet.spamblock.net (EMPATH)
Important CULT ® Research
9 Sep 1997 03:06:30 -0700
<5v3736$j16@sdrn.zippo.com>
>SKEP-TI-CULT® is a term coined by Bruce. Actually,
>Bruce is it's founder. It is a term he applies to
>anyone he disagrees with.
The first part of the statement is true. I did coin the term SKEP-TI-CULT®.
The second part is absolutely false. My web pages reveal that
the term applies to people of a CULT mentality: hateful, lying, brainwashed,
and with severe mental and emotional
deficiencies. The pages also point out that actual skeptics are
not those I write about, or attribute SKEP-TI-CULT® to.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: skeptics
what they do and why --- or click here
Some have disagreed with me about the paranormal, and other subjects.
As long as they wrote to me with civility, I treated them politeness and
respect, and did not
attribute SKEP-TI-CULT to them, even though they called themselves
skeptics.
Obviously, the writer of this, "EMPATH" so-called, is being dishonest in this writing.
Here in part 12, this example, we will deal with the matter of "honesty."
Here we have only one of the three to show: "honesty," with 2 more
examples.
===============================================================
Subject:
Identification on USENET
From:
dan@psicounsel.com
Date:
1997/09/12
Message-Id: <874083266.14417@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
In article <5v0hu1$fls@sdrn.zippo.com>,
empath@psynet.net (EMPATH) wrote:
was: Important CULT ® Research
now: Identification on USENET
<snip>
> My postings originate at Super Zippo...<snip>
No, EMPATH, that propaganda is for the "newbies." I wrote to "zippo.com" and that is not so.
Besides, you wrote it was not, yourself, as follows:
Subject: Re: Reality Check for EMPATH
From: bru-basher@usa.net
(EMPATH)
Date: 1997/08/24
Message-Id: <5tr25p$css@sdrn.zippo.com>
<snip>
> <snip> Check it out and you'll find theres no such
> ISP as Zippo. There is a well known lighter
> manufacturer with that name. <snip>
You cannot reconcile the above, with the following:
> My postings originate at Super Zippo...<snip>
You cannot "originate" your postings from a place that is not your ISP -- not one like "zippo." (www.zippo.com)
<snip>
> Bru has decided that since it is not the same
> address as my ISP supplied address it isn't legal.
Do you ever stop lying? I never said it was not legal.
The hidden ISP and identity causes people to question your honesty. It is still legal.
> EMPATH ( SKEP-TI-CULT® Psychic # 72-13249-037 )
"SKEP-TI-CULT® Psychic"
When the reader looks at my WEB PAGES, about the word, which I first
coined, "SKEP-TI-CULT®" they can be amused by the above quoted expression
of so-called
"EMPATH."
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE:
skeptics what they do and why
Note the
above to remember it -- and link here
now
Here in part 13, this example, we will deal with the matter of "civility."
I don't care what a person's views are, from the political right, to the political left, from the absolute disbeliever in the paranormal, to the faithful regarding ghost activity.
Whatever the view, and whatever differences we discuss, the absense
of...
SENSE
HONESTY
and
CIVILITY
...is a major polluter of the INTERNET.
In the examples of a lack of the above, I sometimes show examples of a deficiency of all three of the above in one writing.
Here we have only one of the three to show as an example:
"civility,"
================================================================
>Subject: Re: Important CULT ® Research
>From: empath@psynet.net
(EMPATH)
>Date: 1997/09/10
>Message-Id: <5v6m4t$h5o@sdrn.zippo.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
<snip>
> <snip> Bruce <snip> [I, EMPATH] figured the old fool had become senile, had a blow to the > head <snip>
>Subject: Re: Important CULT ® Research
>From: bru-basher@usa.net
(EMPATH)
>Date: 1997/09/11
>Message-Id: <5v8dai$4hg@sdrn.zippo.com>
In another posting, above, there is a different address, with the same "zippo" header. Note, "bru-basher," and the fact that "bru," referring to me, is a common nick-name this so-called "EMPATH" uses, as well as some others from afa-b
>Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.fan.bruce-kettler,
>
alt.fan.art-bell
Note the newsgroup: alt.fan.bruce-kettler, started by a person, other than myself, without my permission.
Here in part 14a, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense." In 14b, from the alleged same person, we will deal with the lack of sense, honesty, and civility. This person lies about me, continually, and I can hardly consider that "civil." The lies don't 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.
In the examples of a lack of the above, I sometimes show a deficiency of all three of the above in one writing.
Here, in 14a, we have only one of the three to show as an example: "sense."
===============================================================
Subject: Re: Problem Solving And The Psychic
From: empath@psynet.spamblock.net
(EMPATH)
Date: 1997/08/28
Message-Id: <5u4hjh$67c@sdrn.zippo.com>
>Actually I'm very proud of those [following] statements.
>Art Bell is not helping in promoting a serious
>study of the paranorma. He totally ruins
>any chance of serious study with his nonsense.
> Denounce
Art. Join the skeptics. Become a
> basher.
Stop Trolling. Vow to expose Art
> as the
scam artist he is. Ridicule Art's
> guests
and supporters. You'll notice you'll
> have
a new lease on life, one
> with
purpose and satisfaction.
>
> EMPATH
Art Bell is a talk show host. I am not, here, defending Art Bell. I am questioning the ideas of a "new lease on life," and a life with "purpose and satisfaction," from denouncing Art Bell, ridiculing his guests and supporters, and joining the "skeptics."
I am posing a question for the intelligent, sensible, and mentally balanced reader to ask themselves, whether such a feeling of "purpose and satisfaction" makes sense.
In other words, many ridicule, and some "bash" people, but is that, mostly, their "purpose"? Is "bash [ing]" as a "purpose" for living, that of a sensible person?
(Art Bell: http://www.artbell.com)
From: empath@skipper.spamblock.org (Empath)
Subject: Re: [4/4] The ALT.PARANORMAL FAQ
Date: Wed. 11 Mar 1998 17:11:09 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Message-ID: <3506c1c7.8962709@enews.newsguy.com>
alt.paranormal FAQ:
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
and in
news.answers (newsgroup)
as:
alt.paranormal_FAQ
Raymond Karczewski, E-mail:<arkent@cdsnet.net>
recently
wrote in the newsgroup alt.paranormal:
Is it not the ultimate of
hypocrisy for a
<snip> fake to demand
"honesty" on the
part of "those" he attacks.
Raymond's WEB SITE: http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/
Is it not the ultimate of hypocrisy
for a
<snip> fake to demand
"honesty" on the
part of "those" he attacks.
You, "EMPATH" have shown obvious deception on USENET, and contradicted yourself about the fact that you hide your identity, and make your ISP harder to find with layers of cover.
You, obviously, are a fake. You are a fake psychic, and I'm not referring to your abilities. I mean you allege this talent as a "cover," while you obviously don't believe there is such a thing. Your writing has uncovered you, being the robot-like drone of the typical pseudo-skeptic.
What are you afraid of, for someone to know who or what you are?
I've written to "newsguy" about Tim Hill with his two identitites on USENET, one to collect supposed "votes" and another as Tim Hill, and all they know how to do is "baffle people with bul****t." Though they will not admit it or directly confront an issue, to them, using a fake name is fine, and one person using a number of them is also fine.
I have copies of your lies, deceptions, contradictions and complete nonsense on my WEB SITE. Click at "Empath" from:
http://www.psicounsel.com/intelllig.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com (DanKettler) wrote:
>I don't want to be placed in a position where I have to be
>on USENET, or where anyone has to be on for any certain time,
>during any period. This list of people should "play it by
>ear" without you, or anyone, having any rigid "duties" for
>this group of "regulars."
I was replying to John McGowan, who was rightfully complaining about what seemed like some extra work was being cut out for him by one of the pseudo-skeptics, to find additional persons to add to the list.
>All of us "regulars" (moderators) can come and go as
>we please, without answering to anyone.
You quote my above, and make it into something entirely different than it was meant, and then distort the meaning of all the events that have occurred on USENET, just to discredit me.
You, and your ILK, are a special breed of PIG that wallows in its own excrement and mud, savoring the stink, one which Raymond Karczewski refers to this way:
How many other
fictitious labels do
you and the
other AFAB [no friends of
Art Bell] bullies
hide behind as you
conduct your
collective "PR spin"
momentum of
gratuitous character
assassination
and misdirection? My
personal take
on the matter is that
some but not
all of the AFAB bullies
are media shills
operating in a
disinformation
capacity. Some knowingly,
while others
are unaware of their being
manipulated
into such use.
In due time an
investigation will unmask the
members of the
group, and its agenda will be
exposed to all.
It is then the present
structure operating
behind the label of
AFAB Bullies
will crumble under the weight
of its own nefarious
machinations
And, www.skepticult.org which was born from the belly of this monster (no friends of Art Bell) is what this is now about, in my opinion. Tim Hill (self proclaimed "ruling monarch" of afa-b, now calls himself a member)
And, what has Tim Hill (self-proclaimed "ruling monarch of afab) tried to do? He's tried to take over alt.paranormal, and blame me for it. This he's done with what I called a phony CHARTER for a.p, and some FAQ. I called it phony because it was placed by anti-paranormal people with a BOGUS vote, not because it had not been archived, as you allege.
This "taking over" is not some rule, for as everyone knows, it does not exist, but one of influence, a device of deception.
The alleged "joke" nature of it is, itself, a joke, since "digger" continued to write "ALL PREVIOUS CHARTERS ARE REVOKED" and that can be believed by anyone reading the newsgroup without sufficent knowledge. Now, you call it a joke. That's pure deception. There was an attempt to repeat this FAQ which contained specific mention of me, to ban me from mentioning my URL that exposes people like them:
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
This "now you see a joke" and "now you see it serious" is only deception, and we are not stupid enough to fall for that which comes from your childish minds.
For you to write of it as a joke is ridiculous, as the attempt through one of the afa-b people, "digger," was to repeatedly make it appear in alt.paranormal to get people to believe it had validity, and to thereby discredit and censor me.
No, I never said he was actually taking anything over, or that I was competing with his FAQ, nor did I rush to have it validated before another, as you alleged. In fact, I've made a mockery of nearly every attempt at this deception.
You EMPATH are a liar, one who lies continually, and I have glaring examples of your lies and contradictions, referenced above, that anyone can read.
<snip>
this is about the most foolish
endeavor I've ever seen you in...trying
to do the impossible.
All you allege I tried to do, I never did. You are, again I say, a liar. You are a particularly obvious liar, not one who makes mistakes or does not check the facts. The facts have been plain to see, and obviously you have been reading the newsgroup to see them.
An alt
group on Usenet does not
allow
for the control you hope for.
What control? Where in the above quote of me is "control" written. I have designated a group of people who can, with a consensus, change the FAQs, or decide which persons remains in their own group, or moderate the newsgroup (as the FAQ specify what the word "moderate" means) -- if and when they want. I found it necessary to come up with the names of people who had contributed to the newsgroup in a positive way for a long enough period of time that they would have a knowledge of the paranormal, and experience in the newsgroup.
If I had not come up with some names, then it could only be considered that every JACKAL, like yourself, could have a voice in the FAQ and CHARTER. The other extreme would be if I had control myself, which I did not decide for.
The writing you quoted above gives me none of what you allege.
Once a group is created,
even the
creator exercises no control.
Who wrote differently? I never wrote that Steve Reiser had control, and in fact I wrote the opposite just recently. I wrote that his desire to create a newsgroup that was for paranormalists, not pseudo-skeptics, could not be something that we can rely upon for the wording of the FAQ, though we could use it as a factor in our writing to justify our decisions.
"Control" is not alleged, nor was it sought by me. I have made it clear, even in the wording of the FAQ-CHARTER, that these are guidelines, and it's obvious there are no real rules.
All my previous posts are obtainable from DEJANEWS:
Dan Kettler
DanKettler
Bruce Daniel Kettler
I don't contradict myself, and do not lie, as you and the ugly creeps of your little club do, so I make sure people can read my previous writing, know my ISP, and actually know who I am.
I don't need "sock puppets," made-up fake identities to add to some group and make it appear like there are more people in some clone-like mentality than there actually are. Raymond Karczewski has pointed out this deceptive practice of you people. (www.skepticult.org)
I've heard there are 90 of you, and I don't believe it. There are 90 names, and probably many less actual people using multiple names.
<snip>
You so earnestly slave over your
instrument of control in hopes that
your FAQ will create some type of
rule system...
How do you get a "rule" system out of my writing, from
your quote of my writing above:
This list
of people should "play it by
ear" without
you, or anyone, having any
rigid
"duties" for this group of "regulars."
That means a non-rule "system." It's weird that you believe you can quote me, and then write opposite meanings to what was quoted in the very same posting. You, indeed, are a liar, but a stupid one at that.
You wrote:
...or provide authority for yourself
and those you feel are worthy.
I did not allege any authority of myself over any of them. All I did was compose the new FAQ revision according to a consensus of those people.
Where is the authority? We have "guidelines," and I have repeatedly written that, even in the FAQ:
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
...that these are guidelines, and cannot be considered law. It's
an unmoderated (by the USENET meaning) group, so no-one can enforce any
rules. I have made it abundantly clear that if people go contrary
to the FAQ-CHARTER by debating, or attempting debate, we cannot report
them to ISPs, or in any way harass them.
I've even written in the FAQs that one should not even flame them. Flames are for liars, character-assassins, like yourself and all your ILK.
The only "authority" is influence. When guidelines are written, one can persuade people that they are good advice. This is obviously what your ILK has tried to do, with their BOGUS votes, and BOGUS CHARTER -- an instrument of attack upon me, personally, and even containing my name in it, and referenced in deceptive attacks upon my obviously LEGAL, and in conformance with NETIQUETTE, actions.
I call it "BOGUS" because of the phony votes that were not needed in an alt group, anyway.
Another blatant lie of yours:
You rush to validate it before
the "other side" validates a
competing tool.
I started writing and posting this FAQ many months ago, in alt.paranormal. It was not "validated" (as you call it) until Feb 20. There was no rush for me to archive it. Indeed, I knew it was not law, and had no reason to be in a hurry to beat anyone, and even pointed out IN PUBLIC POSTS (and you obviously read much of what I write) that there could be competing FAQ-CHARTERS simultaneously in archive status, and none would be more valid than the other, except in the view of the readers who would be informed by people.
The "other side" writes
for another
reason. They
know such concepts of
power in an unmoderated
alt group is
beyond reach, but
they of course enjoy
watching the clown
compete against an
adversary that doesn't
exist.
That is just another attempt, above, at ridicule, and obvious deception at a time after the BOGUS CHARTER, with the BOGUS votes has been exposed as such with one person identifying himself, and then writing about having taken "votes" for a "CHARTER" as another fake identity.
God, what liars and creeps you and your ILK are!
<snip>
Join us again as we make our increasingly difficult search for "Intelligent Life on the Net."
It's there, but you just have to search.
========================================================
The Newsreader FORTE AGENT has a "killfile" capability. You can actually select *to read* the writing of certain authors, and automatically screen out the rest.
Also, you may read all but certain writers.
Only the postings that you want to read are placed in our computer memory, and you can read and respond while not connected to the INTERNET.
The above is a perfect way to avoid wasting time with UNintelligent life on the Net. You can rely upon our force of cesspool sifters to help you know who to killfile.
Stay tuned to our series for a longer list in the future,
and for now, your recommended killfile list consists of:
Dan Pressnell
Enter, in your FORTE AGENT, newsreader: author:
Dan Pressnell with your "add kill filter" command.
Here in part 14, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense."
In the examples of a lack of the above, I sometimes show
examples of a deficiency of all three of the above in
one writing.
Subject: Re: Problem Solving And The Psychic
From: empath@psynet.spamblock.net (EMPATH)
Date: 1997/08/28
Message-Id: <5u4hjh$67c@sdrn.zippo.com>
>Actually I'm very proud of those [following] statements.
>Art Bell is not helping in promoting a serious
>study of the paranorma. He totally ruins
>any chance of serious study with his nonsense.
> Denounce
Art. Join the skeptics. Become a
> basher.
Stop Trolling. Vow to expose Art
> as the
scam artist he is. Ridicule Art's
> guests
and supporters. You'll notice you'll
> have
a new lease on life, one
> with
purpose and satisfaction.
>
> EMPATH
Art Bell is a talk show host. I am not, here, defending
Art Bell. I am questioning the ideas of a "new lease on
life," and a life with "purpose and satisfaction," from
denouncing Art Bell, ridiculing his guests and supporters,
and joining the "skeptics."
I am posing a question for the intelligent, sensible, and
mentally balanced reader to ask themselves, whether such
a feeling of "purpose and satisfaction" makes sense.
In other words, many ridicule, and some "bash" people, but
is that, mostly, their "purpose." Is a certain person to
"bash" the "purpose" for living, of sensible people?
Art Bell: http://www.artbell.com
Part 15
From: dan@psicounsel.com
Subject: My Bookstore and Coffee Shop
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.paranet.psi
Message-Id: <874443809.17646@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 16 21:03:37 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 208.198.212.192 (tiger192.pcisys.net)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
From: dan@psicounsel.com
Subject: Mutt's "Skeptic" illogic
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,
alt.paranet.paranormal,alt.paranet.psi
Message-Id: <874435497.7005@dejanews.com>
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 16 18:45:00 1997 GMT
======================================================
This is about the paranormal and logic. It is not about
bookstores or coffee shops -- those are part of an analogy -
a hypothetical dialogue.
BDK:
Mutt, I own a bookstore. In that
store are books about coffee.
They will explain research with Coffee
Beans, and how
it was manufactured, and about people
who drink black coffee.
MUTT:
I've been to your bookstore, and the
books you mention don't
prove that black coffee exists.
I've been to your bookstore, and I've
been to your coffeee
shop. Your books tell of black
coffee, and one has written
in it, that people who drink coffee
with cream and sugar
are not drinking real coffee.
I don't even believe in black coffee,
but even if it were
real, you sure don't know about it,
because you mix
cream and sugar with it.
All that is written about coffee, and
there is absolutely
nothing written about cream or sugar.
BDK:
Hey, wait a minute! There's not
supposed to be any such
thing as coffee, right?
MUTT:
Well, no, but *IF* it did exist, you
wouldn't have known
anything about it.
BDK:
But, Mutt, people who order cream or
sugar are still drinking
coffee. I sell real coffee, sometimes
black, and at other
times it has cream or sugar in it.
It tastes a bit different,
with cream or sugar, but it's real coffee.
MUTT:
No, your coffee is not real. I
believe what I read in the book
about coffee, even though I don't believe
there is anything
such as coffee. No, BDK, you do
not know what coffee is.
You use the term "pure coffee" when you
serve cream and
sugar.
BDK:
First of all, I just use the term "coffee"
not "pure coffee,"
since we serve it with or without additions.
Second, I believe this dialogue has ended,
and probably any
possible future dialogue with you.
====================================================================
Substitute words:
PURE COFFEE
= PARAPSYCHOLOGY
CREAM
= ASTROLOGY
SUGAR
= TAROT
BOOKSTORE
= scistudy.html
COFFEE SHOP
= PSI COUNSEL PSYCHIC READINGS
====================================================================
I have a "sense-honesty-civility" series at the web site:
I believe I'll include this in that text, as an example of writing
that shows little sense.
>Subject: BDK Does Not Know About Parapsychology
>From: "Mutt" <Mutt@CyberJunkie.com>
>Date: 1997/08/10
>Message-Id: <5sjmcc$idv@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
> This sight [site] came from Bruce's own proof page
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Proof of what? It's proof that psychic phenomena exists, right?
>University of Amsterdam Parapsychology Laboratory FAQ
> 4 WHAT IS NOT PARAPSYCHOLOGY?
> <snip> parapsychology is not the study of... concerned with
> astrology...vampires, alchemy, or witchcraft.
So what?
>Many scientists view parapsychology with great suspicion...
>[because of] "psychic" entertainers, magicians...self-proclaimed
>"psychic practitioners" call themselves parapsychologists...
Again, so what?
> And here is what Bruce offers on his home page:
> psychic reading
> numerology
> past lives
> tarot
> astology
> I think this speaks for itself.
No, it speaks none of what you are trying to convey. You write nonsense.
On the one hand, I have a page devoted to the showing of evidence of "Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena." That is, what you term, a "proof" page. That shows that psychic phenomena is a reality. That is pure parapsychology. That is not a mixture of psychic phenomena and tarot reading or astrology. That is not meant to be proof of the validity of my services.
On the other hand, I have services offered on another page, which includes astrology and tarot.
"Speaks for itself," your words, mean this, as in the heading:
"BDK does not know about parapsychology"
If pure parapsychology is what you quote, and has to do with the
page I have references from:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
...and psychic perception practiced along with tarot or astrology REFERENCED FROM ANOTHER PAGE WITH A DIFFERENT TITLE, is supposed to mean I, supposedly, don't know about parapsychology, then your so-called "mind" produced that conclusion, certainly not from any form of logical thought process.
Here is more of what you imply:
BDK
does not only not know what parapsychology is,
he gives parapsychology a bad name by mixing the
term up with practices that include tarot and
astrology.
The above, which you imply by your quotes, is absolutely incorrect. I don't use the word "parapsychology" in connection with the services offered on my web pages. It is real psychic phenomena. The use of astrology in the hands of a real psychic does not diminish the psychic's ability, nor does the use of Tarot Cards.
Here in part 16, this example, we will deal with the matter of "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.
This is not about the positions held, but the arguments hat attempt to support them, whether they make sense, are honest, and civil.
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 sometimes show deficiency of all three of the above in one writing.
Here we have only one of the three to show as an example: "sense."
===============================================================
Subject: This Is Not A Flame About Bruce.
From: "Mutt" <Mutt@CyberJunkie.com>
Date: 1997/09/19
Message-Id: <5vt46k$pk9@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
<snip>
>Here is a man posting what he believes factual. He is so
>sure of himself he post [s] it on a daily basis.
The postings are in alt.paranormal, a newsgroup obviously designated
for discussion of the paranormal, the subject
I post about.
> <snip> proof which he provides...it is insufficient.
I provide references to scientific studies, not proof.
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
> ...in the middle of a war over his beliefs.
Nothing in my discussions shows a war over my so-called "beliefs." The writing of this "Mutt" makes no sense.
> [I should not be] in a debate with someone over their
> religion (or other strongly held belief system).
Again, the writing, here, makes no sense. My complaint was about your inaccurate references to me, personally, not the fact that you disagree that PSI exists.
> Bruce made his mistake by introducing his beliefs
> as if they were facts.
You see, you have things wrong here. If I am in a martial
arts discussion, with a group of martial arts practitioners, talking about
CHI, there is no question during that discussion
about the *existence* of CHI. In another setting, or perhaps
a private discussion, an agreed upon debate as to whether CHI exists as
an energy would be appropriate.
As an example, and agreed by most of the "regulars" of alt.paranormal,
sci.skeptic is for debate as to the existence of PSI. alt.paranormal is
for discussion about the subject, itself. The truth of this may be
discovered by examining the archives: http://www.dejanews.com
and finding that, for the most part, people who participate in alt.paranormal,
regularly over the long period (years), and who are in favor of the idea
that PSI exists, do not debate the existence of PSI.
> If his beliefs are that strong then a public forum is
> not the place to expect uncritical discussion.
Again, your writing does not make sense.
If I participate in a discussion about a certain way of looking at the human mind, which states that there is a hidden part of the mind, and I disagree, and believe there is no hidden part of the mind, it is not my place to disagree in a discussion about the subject. Everyone in that group who is investigating about it is assuming the existence of that part of the mind.
There are settings for such debate, as to whether the subject the group is talking about, actually exists, but not in a meeting about the subject. Such settings can me set up at any time, if they do not already exist. As an example, one may attend such a meeting, and agree to make an announcement. This brief announcement is that a debate will take place elsewhere at a different time.
alt.paranormal and similar newsgroups are for discussion about the subject, the paranormal. Settings already exist on USENET for discussion as to whether the paranormal exists, such as alt.paranet.skeptic, and sci.skeptic.
> For some skeptical people (myself included) a bell
> goes off whenever someone implies they know something
> for a fact.
I would call it a trigger mechanism in some program in your mind (better
known as brainwashing). As I've shown in other posts, you often show
delusional
tendencies in your writing on USENET. This delusion comes
from the programming. When people are discussing the paranormal,
they discuss it as if it is known as
fact. Everyone does that, whatever the subject. To the brainwashed
so-called "skeptic" that appears to be a "claim," because the mechanism
(programming) causes them to assume that. Then the *doctrine*
part of the programming takes over (like for any religion) and comes:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," either consciously
or unknown to the victim of this rape of the human mind. This is
not about the entire wording of the doctrine, whether it is valid
or not, but the word require is the key, here. People are
not required to do anything.
"...in order [for a doctrine] to be effective(Factors Promoting Self-Sacrifice)
a doctrine must not be understood, but has
to be believed in."
The True Believer
by
Eric Hoffer
> He has left himself no room for the possibility
> that he may be wrong and that precludes any possibility
> of sensible debate.
You assume, like all brainwashed cultists, that I and others who write of the paranormal *must* debate you, or others of your kind. That is not reason, it is brainwashing.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: skeptics what they do and why
- or click here
As for whether I have "no room for the possibility that [I] may be wrong," nothing I've written shows that. My writing is about a subject, and I am not obligated to qualify it with the idea that it may be a theory, or anything you and the remainder of your cultists might think is appropriate.
> I am currently having doubts about how to proceed
> from here. <snip>
Religious fanatics are compelled to fight against all odds, and as history
shows, even to the death. I assume you will never stop trying to
save the world from what you think is "ignorance" and "supersitition,"
and you will give little concern to the personal expense to
your rational thinking, or to whatever other parts of what remains
of the "life" you are giving up.
"The Fanatic is perpetually
incomplete and
insecure. He
cannot generate self-assurance
out of his individual
resources--out of his
rejected self--but
finds it clinging only to
whatever support he
happens to embrace...
He sacrifices his life to prove his worth."
(Factors Promoting Self Sacrifice)
The True Believer
by
Eric Hoffer
PART 17
This is about Tom Schuler duo@teleport.com
a skeptic
who demonstrates, in his postings on USENET
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.
Here in part 17, this example, we will deal with the matter of "sense,"
"honesty," and "civility," showing how all three are
evident in Tom Schuler's postings on USENET.
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.
This is not about the positions held, but the *arguments*
that attempt to support them, whether they make sense, are honest,
and civil.
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 sometimes show
a deficiency of all three of the above in one writing.
Here we show the abundance of them in skeptic Tom Schuler's
writing.
=============================================================
Subject: Re: CHI DEMONSTRATED IN PUBLIC
From: duo@teleport.com
(Tom Schuler)
Date: 1997/09/22
Message-Id: <3426f790.33307288@news.teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.paranormal,talk.religion.newage,rec.martial-arts
[More Headers]
<snip>
Objectivity is measured by the consistency of multiple observations, carefully performed by multiple independent witnesses. No single observer on a single trial can claim their experience to be objective.
This is not a matter of consensus. The observations are not forced into agreement. Preconceptions and rationalizations are, to the greatest extent possible, excluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Above, makes sense. [BDK]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: CHI DEMONSTRATED IN PUBLIC
From: duo@teleport.com
(Tom Schuler)
Date: 1997/09/22
Message-Id: <604tl9$qj5$1@news1.teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.paranormal,talk.religion.newage,rec.martial-arts
[More Headers]
<snip>
Your personal experiences are insufficient to draw generalized conclusions from. Other people's personal experiences vary from yours. Why do you think yours should have more credibility than theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The tone and content is civil, though challenging. [BDK]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Science gives credibility to evidence which others can observe and replicate. If anyone cannot meet those criteria, they don't get any credibility. That's the way it works. It doesn't pander to your emotional needs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Again, civil. He is not writing about a person, but about an issue. [BDK]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In my observations of the responses to his writing, and
having had an approximate 2 week dialogue with him in
the past, I've never known anyone to accuse him of misquoting
or misrepresenting their writing. [BDK]
There you have it, sense, honesty, and civility. The only thing
one can say about him is that he has no belief in the paranormal.
To him, CHI is explainable by psychological causes, ESP has
no-where near the evidence required to be considered science,
and so on.
I disagree with Tom Schuler's views of phenomena, but I find
him to be:
Sensible
Civil
and
Honest.
Rational and sane discussion is what we need on the INTERNET, whatever the views held.
PART 18
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
Unfortunately, too little of the above is evident on the INTERNET, even from the most educated.
Here in part 18, this example, we will deal with the matter of civility, by showing an example of the lack of it.
Usually, lack of civility consists of an attack on the individual's character, in an attempt to make it appear that what the person writes is not true because of that alleged lack of character.
With the use of DEJANEWS, one can enter the author's e-mail address, the newsgroup, and certain words quoted here, and see the original posting:
http://www.dejanews.com
This is _not_ about what a person's views are. We give
examples of everyone, from the absolute disbeliever in the paranormal,
the so-called "skeptic," to those who believe wholeheartedly that ghosts
and Angels speak with them.
This is _not_ about the positions held, but it is about the _arguments_
that are used in an attempt to support them,
whether they make sense, are honest, or civil.
Since this part, number 18, is excerpted from the pages devoted to Del R. Mulroy, it is important to note that the complete text of Del R. Mulroy's examples may be located at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/mulroy.html
==============================================================
Del Mulroy writes:
...an act of a coward and a malicious
intent
to try in some way in your light
to discredit
me.
Seems that "Coward," "malicious," is not civil, not polite at all.
The reply to the above is at the WEB SITE:
http://www.psicounsel.com/mulroy.html
------------------------------------------------------------
...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.
"...make an ass out of yourself," does not look polite, to me.
What of the New York Times article, about me, that Del
refers to, above?
It is linked from:
http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/bdkspage.html
==============================================================
Now, at the http://www.psicounsel.com/news WEB SITE
"sense-honesty-civility"
"Intelligent Life On the Net?"
Complete text
PART 19
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
Unfortunately, too little of the above is evident on the INTERNET, even from the most educated.
Here in part 19, this example, we will deal with the matter of civility, by showing an example of the lack of it.
Usually, lack of civility consists of an attack on the individual's character, in an attempt to make it appear that what the person writes is not true because of that alleged lack of character.
With the use of DEJANEWS, one can enter the author's e-mail address, the newsgroup, and certain words quoted here, and see the original posting:
http://www.dejanews.com
This is _not_ about what a person's views are. We give
examples of everyone, from the absolute disbeliever in the paranormal,
the so-called "skeptic," to those who believe wholeheartedly that ghosts
and Angels speak with them.
This is _not_ about the positions held, but it is about the _arguments_
that are used in an attempt to support them,
whether they make sense, are honest, or civil.
Since this part, number 19, is excerpted from the pages devoted to John Fitzsimons, it is important to note that the complete text of John Fitzsimons examples may be located at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/fitzsimons.html
==============================================================
John Fitzsimons, <johnf@melbpc.org.au> as quoted on
the WEB page:
http://www.psicounsel.com/fitzsimons.html
Let's see.........looking in the Collins
English Dictionary,,,
HYPOCRISY :
"the practice of professing standards,
beliefs, etc. contrary to one's real
behaviour .."
Let's see if this "fits". You profess
"civility" and admit above that you
aren't
"civil" at times. Yep. Looks like I
found
the right word in the dictionary.
:-)
The above is statement is not accurate, and your writing and my actions
do not show me to be a hypocrite, and I explained why
not on the WEB page. However, John Fitzsimons calling me a hypocrite
shows a lack of civility, and incorrect usage of the English language.
==============================================================
Now, at the http://www.psicounsel.com/news WEB SITE
"sense-honesty-civility"
"Intelligent Life On the Net?"
Complete text
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
Unfortunately, too little of the above is evident on the INTERNET, even from the most educated.
Here in part 20, this example, we will deal with the matter of honesty and civility, by showing examples of the lack of both.
Usually, lack of honesty consists of an attack on the individual's character, by lying about what he or she wrote, in an attempt to make it appear that what the person writes is not true because of that alleged lack of character.
With the use of DEJANEWS, one can enter the author's e-mail address, the newsgroup, and certain words quoted here, and see the original posting:
http://www.dejanews.com
This is _not_ about what a person's views are. We give
examples of everyone, from the absolute disbeliever in the paranormal,
the so-called "skeptic," to those who believe wholeheartedly that ghosts
and Angels speak with them.
This is _not_ about the positions held, but it is about the _arguments_
that are used in an attempt to support them,
whether they make sense, are honest, or civil.
It is important to note that the complete text of John Fitzsimons examples may be located at:
http://www.psicounsel.com/fitzsimons.html
==============================================================
From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.config
Subject: Re: alt.paranormal.moderated already exists
On Mon, 25 May 1998 20:02:36 -0400, David Lindauer
<camille@bluegrass.net> wrote:
> Bruce, did you realize this thread is cross-posted
> to alt.config?
>Dan Kettler wrote:
< snip >
[John Fitzsimons wrote:]
>> Of course he does. He has made a number of posts
>> on this thread including alt.config
>> He hopes that there are enough people there that
>> are moronic enough to support him in his attempt
>> to change alt.paranormal to a moderated newsgroup,
>> run by him, that would exclude any posters he disagrees
>> with.
John Fitzsimons, in the above statement, shows a definate
lack of honesty. A false statement, declared as fact, is
a lie. If a person does not know, to be honest they would
declare it as an opinion, or something they had not fully
investigated.
In newsgroup posts, I never advocated a moderation process
"run by" me.
In both public posts and private discussion, I have, in
fact, advocated that others make decisions in the
moderation process, and still others to actually do the day-to-day
duty of deciding upon which posts should show
in the newsgroup, and which should not.
>> Can we all spell d i c t a t o r ? :-) :-)
>> Regards, John.
The above accusation is not only untrue, as shown in the
evidence of newsgroup postings, but it is also uncivil.
>> ******************************************************
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
>> ******************************************************
==============================================================
Now, at the http://www.psicounsel.com/news WEB SITE
"sense-honesty-civility"
"Intelligent Life On the Net?"
Complete text
sense - an ability to reason soundly
honesty - trustworthy, truthful and upright
civility - politeness
Unfortunately, too little of the above is evident on the INTERNET, even from the most educated.
Here in part 21, this example, we will deal with the matter of honesty, by showing an examples of the lack of it.
Usually, lack of honesty consists of an attack on the individual's character, by lying about what he or she wrote, in an attempt to make it appear that what the person writes is not true because of that alleged lack of character.
With the use of DEJANEWS, one can enter the author's e-mail address, the newsgroup, and certain words quoted here, and see the original posting:
http://www.dejanews.com
This is _not_ about what a person's views are. We give
examples of everyone, from the absolute disbeliever in the paranormal,
the so-called "skeptic," to those who believe wholeheartedly that ghosts
and Angels speak with them.
This is _not_ about the positions held, but it is about the _arguments_
that are used in an attempt to support them,
whether they make sense, are honest, or civil.
=================================================================
This example shows a definate lack of intelligent life on the net when
people like Sherilyn (AKA Tony Sidaway) lie. This number 21 in the
series is an example of a lack of honesty and civility.
aka <Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
aka Sherilyn@my-dejanews.com
=================================================================
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology,
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Sherilyn, known liar and CULTIST fanatic
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 04:36:53 -0600
Sherilyn@my-dejanews.com wrote:
was: Re: Dan's big lie (was Re: [alt.paranormal] Charter FAQ
DISINFORMATION)
now: Sherilyn, known liar and CULTIST fanatic
Sherilyn, known as one of the principal practitioners of:
SHOVE so-called " SKEPTICISM"
down the throats of alt.astrology readers
wrote this drivel and LIES
> > > Sherilyn wrote in message ...
> >
> >
Dan Kettler is trying ...to use
> >
the idea of a charter to restrict
> >
the opinions that can be discussed
> >
on alt.paranormal--in effect, to treat
> >
alt.paranormal as if it were a closed chat
> >
room on a BBS.
<snip>
> > I have never attempted to "restrict the opinions that can
> > be discussed" by contacting ISPs, asking them to not allow
> > such discussion in alt.paranormal because of a charter or FAQ.
Sherilyn wrote:
> A bold lie...
Sherilyn, your lies and attempts to control NEWSGROUPS through
character assassination of the principal proponents is KNOWN,
and written about by myself and others.
> ...sent email to
> abuse@sidaway.demon.co.uk
> Date: 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 GMT
> Message-ID: <3511e1eb.67726519@news.compuserve.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
>
> I am writing to the following person's ISP,s
to comlain about
> CHARTER violations in alt.paranormal.
Above, I wrote, as you quote, that I had _NEVER_ written to:
"restrict the
opinions that can
be discussed"
by contacting ISPs..."
Where, in the above, do I attempt to "restict _OPINIONS_ that
can be discussed? I was writing about a charter violation that
had to do with blatant abuse on the _PERSON_ by a pseudo-skeptic.
I never wrote that a person had violated the charter because they had written
pseudo-skeptic views, which would be a
_difference of opinion_.
Again, Sherilyn your blatant misrepresentations and lies continue.
You are a liar, and a habitual one at that. I've seldom witnessed the writing of a pseudo-skeptic, posting to alt.paranormal, who WAS NOT A HABITUAL LIAR and CHARACTER ASSASSIN.
For the most part they are, like you, CULTIST FANATICS trying to
manipulate the opinions of people who read and post in the
newsgroups, and thus gain influential control:
http://www.psicounsel.com/cult.html
> > Naughty Edmond. How many ISP accounts
have you lost so far?
>
> Please advise your client that their type
of posting to
> alt.paranormal
is in violation of our charter
> alt.paranormal
is _not_ intended as a forum
> for disbelievers
to voice their contempt
> for paranormalists...
That has to do with harassment, not voicing a _difference of
opinion_. I later divided the CHARTER into sections, so that
the specific portion of the CHARTER could be appropriately
quoted.
I have never, and I've declared again and again, that no-one should
ever complain to an ISP, or anyone, if a person writes
contrary _OPINIONS_. In your zealous searching of DEJANEWs for
my writing, you conveniently miss that. My _ADVICE_ regarding this
is to the proponent of the paranormal about not arguing _OPINIONS_ with
pseudo-skeptics, but in no case do I advise anyone to report a person to
an ISP for writing contrary opinions, or to harass a person posting skeptical
viewpoints in alt.paranormal.
In fact, the FAQ has had the wording, from the beginning, for the proponent of the paranormal to not harass the skeptic for writing differences of opinion.
I had different views for moderated, and for unmoderated groups.
A moderated group has no necessity for the same type of advice,
so I've always advocated that a moderated group consist of
skeptical discussion.
<snip>
...popularity wars, and subsequent attempts to gain control
by influence through propaganda and lies, is of a mild interest,
if posted occasionally to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. Later,
when more extensive investigation of USENET comes about, the archives of
such posts will be useful.
See:
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
==============================================================
Now, at the http://www.psicounsel.com/news WEB SITE
"sense-honesty-civility"
"Intelligent Life On the Net?"
Complete text
Last Page