Continued "Skeptic" writing of Kristine Campbell.

See the year 2000 exchange with Raymond Karczewski, here.

to advertise you web page as a serious place where serious science takes place is ludicrous. it is a silly page, featuring silly people, run by a silly person.

Regarding "serious science," that must be a response to my signature in postings, shown below: S.S.O.P.P. It is a "serious place where serious science takes place." As one example,

The "Instant Links" and other pages, on the other hand cannot be thoroughly checked, and I've placed a disclaimer on that page and others, that all the links are not necessarily endorsed by Psi Counsel, Inc., or by myself personally.

As for the psychic readings, the results of the readings, and the satisfaction of the clients with the psychic's ability to know and understand these people, are carefully monitored.

The reader may examine the pages to make their own determination. I doubt that your writing will sway anyone.

BDK

---

CONTINUED:

...see how many you can match with the list above outlining the tactics of all the skeptics:

posted in afab (among others), by mr. kettler, on nov 23rd, in response to glen when glen asked that bruce stop posting in afab. [afa-b - alt.fan.art-bell]

"alt.fan.art-bell" (aka: "afab") is not the proper title of a "skeptic" newsgroup? A "fan" is an enthusiast. If a person is a fan of Rush Limbaugh, do they ridicule what Rush Limbaugh believes and talks about? They may express disagreement occasionally, but if their basic views were opposite, they would not be "fans."

From my observation, it seems alt.fan.art-bell was started by actual "fans." Later, a new mob took over and changed the FAQ'S (Frequently Asked Questions). I've been asked why I post pro-paranormal to a newsgroup like alt.fan.art-bell. It's absurd! It would have been much more realistic for them to have started a newsgroup with a name like "alt.basher.art-bell."

Art Bell is not a fanatic with the label, "skeptic." Everyone is skeptical, but I am referring to the "skeptic" label , here.

No, "alt.fan.art-bell" is not the title of a "skeptic" newsgroup. There are many anti newsgroups, but "fan" is not part of the title used.

If people who contribute to alt.fan.art-bell want to be part of a "skeptic" newsgroup, they can start a newsgroups called "alt.basher.art-bell" or something like that. If they want to maintain the "fan" title, no-one is compelled to consider it a "skeptic" newsgroup, no matter how many skeptics post there, or what the FAQ'S have written in them.

BDK

nevermind that there are several letters on the web site from mr. kettler's fans that demand people to stop posting on "their" ng....and quite a few from the very same, emailed directly to me and my postmaster, threatening me if i don't stop posting on "their" ng (i was surprised to learn that the f word can be used in so many creative ways. you and your folks over in alt.paranormal are real charmers, bruce). anyway here was part of the post:

I think you should have your head examined. [quoting BDK]

thanks, bruce...my debate teacher in high school should have taught us that one.

Well, if someone calls alt.fan.art-bell a "skeptic" newsgroup, and criticizes me for allegedly being in an inappropriate place to tell of what I heard on the Art Bell show, and further misrepresent my writing in other ways, they should have their head examined, or, at the very least they should check out their interpretation of common English Language usage, so they may discover what "fan" means.

Again, quoting out of context is one of the methods of the SKEP-TI-CULT.

SCORE *ONE* for:

3. Quotes out of context

The "...my debate teacher..." bit makes it look as if my only "argument" had been "...have your head examined" when I'd pointed out the above.

Thank you, Kristine, for showing yet another proof of my descriptions being "right-on."

Again, more distortion from the SKEP-TI-CULT

Art Bell is far from being a cultist so-called "skeptic."

Date: 20 Nov 1996 08:57:43 GMT
From: dkettler@ix.netcom.com(Bruce Daniel Kettler

i responded to a post by bruce who said not to knock shramek...that chuck was right, and there could be a conspiracy...

bruce wrote:

Seems that Chuck Schramek has scooped everyone else. He HAS the image. Where is yours?

Don't knock him until you have the facts. Remember, you could be in his shoes!

More incorrect statements about what the other, supposedly, wrote. I'm losing count of the number of times you do exactly what I have written this cult does.

I never wrote the above, after "bruce wrote:" and the USENET archives may be accessed to verify that fact.

BDK

so i replied:

<snip>

bruce <snip> and he corrected my spelling errors

Another incorrect statement from the SKEP-TI-CULT.

I never corrected Kristine's, or anyone else's spelling errors.

BDK

<snip>

i have no objection to you stating your position, or believing in anything you choose...what i do object to is you pushing your beliefs onto those who don't care.

i object to nasty email from your fans demanding that i don't post in your little ng...

<snip>

...and i would appreciate it if you could pass this courtesy along to the morons who defend your good name.

"Pushing [my] beliefs"? I am writing in alt.paranormal, alt.fan.art-bell, and other similar newsgroups. My posting to alt.fan.art-bell contains subjects that are on the ART BELL show. Courtney Brown appeared there, and spoke of RV - Remote Viewing. Aliens were discussed. All three are the SUBJECT TITLE AND CONTENT OF MY POSTS you are referring to. "C.Brown--RV--Aliens" This is a "fan" thing, not an anti thing.

 
I don't have what you call "fans." I don't know who is defending my name with e-mail to you.

BDK

you continually spout goofy paranormal theories, and when someone says "gee, that's stupid" you holler skeptic, skepticult and challenge the person to disprove your insidious babble. skeptic (as defined by the random house dictionary, page 1232): a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

That definition does not include:

1. Lying
2. insulting behavior
3. cynicism
4. Character assassination
5. Ridiculing
6. Calling people "stupid" for their beliefs
7. Misrepresentation

BDK

---

kristine

I have never challenged anyone to disprove what you refer to as "paranormal theories."

As I've written, I respect true skeptics, those who are according to the dictionary meaning
you show, above. However, the typical actions of the SKEP-TI-CULT, which you show many
excellent examples of, are a lot different than skepticism.

"Kristine" writes: "will you go away"?

Not only will I not go away, but your words will not go away. They will remain at this WEB site,
and people will continue to visit them for a long, long time, looking to you as an example of this
mentality you represent. You should watch the WEB COUNTER, and consider that some of the
people at this WEB site will read your nonsense.

You may distort my meanings, and rewrite what I wrote ON USENET. However, both people
who frequent USENET, and those who do not, many MORE people will continue to know of
these pages about "skeptics," so-called, and they will read this.

This pattern, or common practice of rewriting what another person wrote is indicated by the
document sTARBABY

These pages will not get changed around like my writing does on USENET, when the distorted,
lied-about, mis-quotes are included with "replies" of so-called "skeptics."

The proof of what was written, actually, and in full context, is in the USENET ARCHIVES.

BDK

Note:

There are many examples of the type of writing shown above from the SKEP-TI-CULT mentality, with verifiable quotes
from those who have, so-called, "debated" me.

To see this so-called debate, from Usenet postings Search Usenet   There are search features for subject titles, word
searches, etc. It's often best to use a name, as people change their e-mail address.

As recently as April 2000, Kristine Campbell, or another person using that name, again renewed a discussion of conflict, and that is shown here.

Here is the Search Engines page

Just a little experience and investigation on USENET will reveal that what I'm giving examples of here are NOT broad
over-generalizations. The examples are characteristic of a vast majority of these people who call themselves "skeptics."

LINK ** click here for GOOGLE link

"Attacking the persons' overall character in a  lame attempt to make them smaller than the skeptics."

DK: Click at link ** for complete text that the above is quoted from.