"Skeptics," what they do and why


In this writing about the people who call themselves "skeptics," but are not, I find the best evidence of the way they think is from those others who have experienced the results of it, the paranormal enthusiasts, and from the "skeptics" themselves.

It is for that reason that I'm including the writing of these so-called "skeptics." 


My comments are between the ++++++ lines, and occasionally in [brackets].

"BDK" appears at the end of each ++++++ comment.


From: ajackson@brokersys.com (aj)

Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors,alt.pagan, alt.paranet.psi,talk.religion.newage,alt.paranet.paranormal, alt.paranet.ufo,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.fan.art-bell, alt.alien.visitors

Subject: Re: C.Brown--RV--Aliens
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 11:13:40 GMT

In article -57drt3$enp@clark.zippo.com- l.d.best@your-net.com wrote:

On 1996-11-24 zradio1@aol.com said:

In -576dno$j29@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us- a054215t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Ernest Feo) writes:

[A quote of what I, BDK, had written]:

One might want to examine:

      Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena

at the above SITE.

[The "skeptic" commented on the above]:

Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena? That's an oxymoron, isn't it?

[oxymoron: a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas are combined]

To connect to that page -- click here:

Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena

Well, is it real science, or what?

If the so-called "skeptics" looked at the material at the LINKED WWW SITES, and commented on that wouldn't it be more "scientific" than telling us about what, at first glance, appears to be an oxymoron?


[Another person wrote]:

Tell that to those who spent years doing just that. Start with Rhine, maybe?


[Yet another reply -- this time to the above]:

Too bad it didnt start and end with Rhine.....
then all we would have to contend with would
be con artists like L.Ron Hubbard.

[refererring to the page at this WEB SITE
"Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena"]

Why "contend" with anything? Why not actually "investigate"?

Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena


Subject: Re: Danian Brinkly
From: gopens@don'tfrigginspammedeltanet.com (Kristine Campbell)
Date: 1997/09/22
Newsgroups: alt.fan.art-bell
[More Headers]

In article <342399D2.CF851F6D@geocities.com>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

>Could it be??? Nah, must be Bruce in drag. The _real_ kristine doesn't
>like us anymore.

i love you, man. all of you. i mean it. really.

and it is me...bruce could never pretend to be me...i was never as funny
as bruce the moronic coward is...

["Bruce," above, is reference to me, BDK.]

Queen of the Venom Spewers


Subject: Re: Danian Brinkly
From: gopens@don'tfrigginspammedeltanet.com (Kristine Campbell)
Date: 1997/09/20
Newsgroups: alt.fan.art-bell
[More Headers]

In article <5vq7i6$enc@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, shiela@ix.netcom.com
(shiela) wrote:

>Does anybody know how Danian is doing?

o, who the f**k cares? go away.
Queen of the Venom Spewers

[Danion Brinkley, author of Saved By the Light in the hospital with a life-threatening medical problem--BDK]

For the following posting, I couldn't feasibly quote it entirely, as it's much too long. Above are 2 more recent, unedited, postings of Kristine Campbell, from Sept. 20 and 22nd -- 1997

Continued "Skeptic" writing of Kristine Campbell.

See the year 2000 exchange with Raymond Karczewski, here.

And now, the following comments about these WEB PAGES, and other matters:

From: gameon@pacbell.net (Kristine Campbell)

[NOW -- Kristine Campbell <gopens@deltanet.com> click to send her e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranormal
Subject: hey brian...what a load of crap
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:44:27 -0800

went to your web page


what a bunch of crapola.


there are the endless lists about how to recognize a skeptic, how to respond when skeptics dare post anything in your little group (or anywhere else, for that matter), and letters to you from your followers

Click here for posts from "regulars" of paranormal type newsgroups

Those were public postings, not "letters," and I don't have "followers."



whining about how they just can't cope with all these bullies who post in alt.paranormal.

The quotes are mostly from the "regulars," the one's who have posted regularly for about a year.



but i really enjoyed the part about skeptics modes of expression. i lifted these directly from your page:

What are some "skeptic" modes of expression?

1. Extreme suspicion -- a mistake is called a lie, as one example

2. Distorted view, and representation of, what is quoted -- skeptic writes:

"you said ...." when a person really said or meant something else.

3. Quotes out of context

4. Conflict -- They generate a great deal of personal conflict,
addressing personal issues: how dumb, illogical, or
lacking in education of those with opposing views. They
point out petty mistakes. They dwell upon these petty
issues for weeks, sometimes months at a time.

5. Ridicule -- Rather than just addressing the issue they ridicule those who have a belief.



(double wow...nevermind that you almost always correct someone's spelling, and have posted how stupid people are who disagree with you ALL THE TIME.. you've questioned my mental capabilites at least four times... you posted 15 times arguing c.brown's credentials when the orginal post was about something else and merely mentioned brown)

The above is incorrect, as I never questioned your mental capabilities at all, and the USENET archives certainly do not show such communication with you. I never wrote that any person was "stupid" because of their disagreement with me about the paranormal. I do consider character assassination and lies to be reprehensible, however.

Score THE FIRST -- ONE SO FAR for:

2. "you said ...." when a person really said or meant something else



(gee, i thought these were only employed by the OPPOSITION, but you have learned your lessions well).


The difference between what I do, and what the SKEP-TI-CULT does is simple:

I ridicule and expose the tendency of people of
this sick cult to character-assassinate and lie.

I do not condemn others for differences of opinion,
whether that of actual skepticsm or outright disbelief.

Those of this sick cult, ridicule people for their statements
about the way they see reality, or their reports of others.



mr. kettler,


...skeptics (and i am sooo tired of that word. my gawd, you'd think it was a crime or something. i suggest that if you feel you MUST label us something, call us realists).

The "label," as you call it, was placed by yourselves, and it is at the end of this post that you label yourself, thusly. My label is "so-called 'skeptics'" in quotes. Mr. Edmond Wollmann's term, "cynic" is also appropriate.

Click here to read Edmond's writing about so-called "skeptics." His web site is linked here.