| newsgroups | EHW | debate | who | home |

Revised July 2005

After the following "01 Oct 1999" had been written in the newsgroups,
in December 1999 Matt Kriebel, a pseudo-skeptic, decided to allege
that Edmond H. Wollmann had engaged in what is referred to, on these
pages, as Net Censorship and Terrorism.  The subjects discussed
were alleged illegal cancelling of postings on Usenet, and threats of
physical violence.  I've recorded the main part of that debate
on this linked page.

The following is one of the most complete telling of the
facts of the controversy, that I have written.  The discussion
is about 3 people.

It can be verified by clicking here for Deja reference

From: dan@psicounselSPAM_BLOCK.com (Dan Kettler)
Subject: Re: Net Censorship and Terrorism
Date: 01 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37f5efc9.6142768@news.compuserve.com>

         From:   pharison@ramtop.demon.co.uk (Phil Harrison)
         Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:17:39 GMT
         Message-ID: <slrn7v70p3.dp1.pharison@ramtop.demon.co.uk>

From the pages of Edmond Wollmann:


          "Red Herring" fallacy" - The red herring fallacy
            is committed when the arguer diverts the attention
            of the reader by changing the subject to some
            totally different issue.

Some of PH's discussion borders on the following:

          "Missing the point" -  Another fallacy of
            relevance-The conclusion of the argument is
            irrelevant to the premises. "Missing the point
            illustrates a special form of  irrelevance. This
            fallacy occurs when the premises of an
            argument support one particular conclusion,
            but then a different conclusion, often vaguely
            related to the correct conclusion is drawn.

The above is the consistent PROPAGANDA method of Phil Harrision.  His
so-called discussion is an exercize in PROPAGANDA, and it is
illogical.  It is for that reason that I will reply one more time to
his nonsense, and will probably find use for the wording of this
so-called "discussion" to illustrate the consistent deception of

 Dan Kettler wrote

>Discussion is in regard to the following URL...
>               http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
>               NET TERRORISM and CENSORSHIP

>>> >          1.  Blackmail

>>A policeman aims the same type gun to defend citizens, as
>>criminals aim to terrorize people.  The same weapon works in 2
>>ways.  Shall we condemn the metal and handiwork?

>PH: Are you condemning the act of blackmail only when it is
>PH: done by people you don't like?

>No, I am saying that threats of wrongdoing, and threats of right-doing
>are blackmail in the first instance, and just justifiable threats in
>the second.

>>For the most part, the activities of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC FANATICS
>>on the Net are downright unethical, disgusting, and mean.

PH: Posting old messages from an ex lover on usenet is ok
PH: though? You have an interesting set of moral values.

DK: It depends upon the purpose.  My point was that it was
DK: not blackmail or nearly terrorism as I had
DK: illustrated, not that it was "okay."

EHW:  She is responsible for childish "ridicule" sites and
EHW:  posts.

EHW: writing of the subject person in question, "...motivation
EHW: of these abusers to defame and denigrate me as
EHW: their primary reason to answer my posts..."

EHW  to Susan: "...break all the rules all the rest of us
EHW: have to follow, defame me, and harass me, and
EHW: continually try to spin ME as the one with the
EHW: disorders."

DK: When I find mentally sick people defaming me publicly
DK: with lies,  I will threaten to expose their sickness,
DK: or whatever other defect exists in them until they
DK: stop.  The exposure of their defect is a form of
DK: defense.  It discredits their attack.  It's not blackmail.

DK: EHW is exposing her.  She is writing unwholesome
DK: and derogatory public writing.  If you are attacked
DK: publicly, and you say, I will expose your mentality
DK; if you do not stop publicly lying about me, that is
DK: not blackmail.

DK: The "blackmail" I illustrate is attempting intimidation,
DK; with threats so that the subject will change posting
DK: habits, and such attempts are CONTROL OF
DK: NEWSGROUP WRITING that would be completely
DK: legal and ethical.

DK: Again, the red herring.

            [You] ...divert... the attention
            of the reader by changing the subject to some
            totally different issue.

DK: The subject was whether it was "blackmail" not whether
         it was "okay."

>>I don't see much more than justifiable defense from proponents of the
>>paranormal and the paranormal aspects of astrology.

>PH: You mean that you don't object when it is done by your buddies?

>DK: I do not mean I don't object when "it is done by..." but rather
>what "it" is, is entirely different than what you say "it" is.  In
>other words, "blackmail" is seldom utilized by proponents of the

PH: I agree with that part. Many astrologers and paranormal
PH: believers are quite capable of having a discussion with
PH: people who disagree with their beliefs. John Fitzsimmons
PH: springs to mind as one example, as does Del Mulroy.

Edmond Wollmann and I also have civil discussions with people who
disagree with our beliefs.  However, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC FANATICS, the
majority who express disagreement in these newsgroups, do not _just_

I'm not going to discuss the people you mentioned, here.  My writing
of "justifiable defense" had absolutely nothing to do with your
"reply."  Your "reply" consisted of more deceptive propaganda, subtly
trying to convey the message that _some_  are capable of discussion
with those who disagree with them, with innuendo that _others_ are

>It is almost exculsively used, in these 2 newsgroups, by
>PSEUDO-SKEPTIC FANATICS to control the predominant type of writing.

PH: It looks to me as though the main culprits are people
PH: who can't stand the idea of others disagreeing with them.

DK: proponents of the paranormal, MOST OF THE TIME.  DEJANEWS
DK: can be checked to find out which people do what.

        http://www.deja.com (use "power search")

        Who's Who in alt.paranormal/alt.astrology


DK: Proponents, for the most part, do not mind disagreement.
DK: People object to attempts to control activities in these
DK: newsgroups, intimidation and defamation tactics,
DK; censorship and terrorism.

>As one example, the use of forgeries to falsely depict Raymond
>Karczewski as a sheep-fu**er are probably attempted intimidation and
>blackmail to get him to cease posting, while his threats of using new
>evidence for complaints to authorities, are justifiable.

PH: If his complaints were regarded as valid by the
PH relevent authorities, don't you think that those
PH: authorities might have acted by now?

Here we go again.

            "Red Herring" fallacy" - The red herring fallacy
            is committed when the arguer diverts the attention
            of the reader by changing the subject to some
            totally different issue.

The above was an example of TERRORISM by PSEUDO-SKEPTIC
FANATICS. It was to show how one threat was not blackmail, and the
other was.  That was the point.  Your RED HERRING does not
distract INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL readers from the point I
made.  But then, perhaps you only wish to capture the minds of silly
people with little ability to follow more than a few lines, people who
are incapable of logical thinking.

Whether the complaints were regarded as valid had ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINTS.  I will not answer the question
about authorities acting "by now" because IT HAS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT.  I will not be sidetracked.


PH: Ah, it doesn't take long before you resort to name
PH: calling, does it?

Again, you 1.  TWIST WORDS

                      2.  You utilize PROPAGANDA

                      3.   You "spin" the words people
                             write into something else

                      4.   You are a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC

                      5.   You are fanatical at what you do.
                             (not as fanatical as most of the others)

Same thing, in a different package, without all that "name-calling."

Rational people, using DEJANEWS can see what you do.  You take words
that have negative connotations, like "name-calller" and use them to
convey a negative impression about the other person.

             "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
               Hominem) This fallacy always involves two arguers.
               One of them advances (either directly or implicitly)
               a certain argument, and the other then responds
               by directing his or her attention not to the
               first person's argument but to the first
               person himself. When this occurs, the second
               person is said to commit an argument against the

Much about propaganda is shown on the page of Edmond Wollmann
referenced above.

>>> >          2.  Threats of, or actual frivolous law suits over
>>> >                net activity
>>> >                (to sue a person without a substantial case)
>Written previously > > > DK: And, are the law suits
>threatened "frivolous" or could they turn into a substantial case?
>ITEM 1 > > > PH:  Some individuals seem to threaten legal
>action at the drop of a hat but never actually go ahead with it (but
>that's OK too when it's your pal Ed doing it).
>ITEM 2 > > > DK: The issue addressed was whether the threat was about
>an action that would, if the suit were filed, not be frivolous.  It
>was not whether the threat was made without the actual suit.

PH: If the threatened lawsuit was not frivolous, then why
PH: didn't EHW actually file?

BK: Your argument is flawed.  The fact of not filing does
BK: not prove the threat is about what would be a
BK: frivolous suit.  It costs money to file law suits.
BK: Does EHW necessarily have, now, either the
BK: money or the time?

BK: He has stated that when the time is right, he will.

>>> >          3.   Repeatedly posting home addresses and phone
>>> >                numbers on Usenet
>>> An excellent example of this sort of behaviour is regularly demonstrated
>>> by Raymond Karczewski:
>DK:  Why does he do it?  Is it to control the behavior of the other
>person. Is it a threat?  Does he hint that if the other person changes
>their behavior RK will stop?  Does he want to reveal the person's
>identity for purposes of exposure to clarify what the person is up to?

PH: You mean that you can tell what a person is up to
PH: from their address. That's the spookiest paranormal
PH: thing I have ever seen!

BK: Not so funny, nor is it distracting.

BK: RK has posted about what a person does for a living, and
BK; that could be part of his point about that person having
BK: certain aims.  The address could be proof of it.

BK; In any event, discussions about RK and his motives
BK; should be carried out with him, not me.  Put his name
BK; in a header, carry on with him.  I'm not in this discussion.
BK  I only examined certain possible motives of RK.

>PH: Are you suddenly not objecting to this form of behaviour when it's
>done by one of your buddies too?

>BK: No, it does not matter who he is, whether he's my "buddy" or not.
>BK: If the reader will look, carefully, above, they will see
>BK: what I wrote.  I  wrote that it made a difference _why_
>BK: he posted the address, and I asked you to ask him why.

PH: Have you aked anyone else why they have posted
PH: other people's addresses?

BK: Answering a question with a question does not answer
BK: anything.  The reason why people place addresses
BK: can be obvious, or not so obvious.  RK does not
BK; make the reason obvious.  Others do, and just from their
BK: writing on USENET, it is obvious they are writing
BK: these addresses as a form of blackmail to get the
BK: person to change their LEGAL AND ETHICAL
BK: posting habits.

>>> >          4.   Harassing/threatening telephone calls, e-mail,
>>> >                or regular mail about Net activity

>BK: I read the above reference.  People say his writing complaints
>are harassment.  That's opinion.  He sees legitimate offenses against
>actual violations, and reports them.  These are written POLICIES of
>INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.  That is far different than
>CENSORING FANATICS writing e-mail to me, threatening me
>that they want me to modify my posting habits,

>PH: (Quoting someone else)

Someone who has in the past been forced to deal with Ed's complaints.

BK: As they say in court, it's "heresay."  It's not real evidence.
BK: Where are the documents?  We have allegations about documents.

>PH: There is a difference between sending a single complaint and 300
>per day. But this is about one of your buddies again isn't it?

>BK: Again, you WRITE AS IF it's because he's a "buddy."  You do not
>address the issue as to whether the written account of EHW is true, or
>whether this is just opinion about Edmond Wollmann's so-called "abuse"
>of Internet Service Providers.

PH: As it is written by an individual who worked for an ISP
PH: and had first hand experience of Ed's behaviour, I'd
PH: say that it was a pretty well informed  opinion.

BK: It is heresay.

>>> >          5.   Forged posts, which falsely depict people as against
>>> >                a particular group.

>PH: Not technically a forged post, but the poster seems to have
>>> deliberately chosen an e-mail address designed to be mistaken
>>> for another regular  poster's address.

>BK: I looked at the above.  What is the purpose of her use of

>PH: To cause people to wrongly attribute the article to another
>regular poster. Is it OK to do this if you are one of Dan Kettler's
>buddies too?

>BK: This had absolutely nothing to do with the description I'd given,
>nor did it relate to the examples given at my web site.

>BK: On my web site, I show the use of forged e-mail addresses, and
>these are designed for 2 purposes:
>             1. to make the actual poster look stupid,
>                  crude, or hostile
>             2. to depict the actual poster as against a
>                  certain group

>Neither of the above 2 apply here.

PH: Yes, the first one does.

BK: We have your word that it, allegedly, does.  You are a member of
"skepticult."  The Dejanews archives show that active members on
USENET, of the "skepticult" organization, are habitual liars...



                  Jon, Big Dave, Walsh is the founder,
                  shown a liar, and proven as such, on the pages.

The exact and proven truth of The SKEPTICULT organization is at...


Anything further on the motives of this person writing as "Sherilyn"
should be discussed with that person directly, not with me.

A major difference, here, is that the e-mail address was shown
correctly, while the address shown by FANATICS is changed.

>>> >          6.  Threats of, or actual physical violence/murder
>>> >                to prevent a person from posting, or for revenge.

>PH: Such as "Wait till we meet in person a*s hole I'll rip you a
>>> new one then too."

>>You know, and I know, that in context the above meant that Edmond
>>Wollmann was going to do this verbally in debate.  He spoke of
>>Television Cameras, and discussion.
>>Let's take this IN CONTEXT, shall we?
>>You spin doctors are really into this defamation and deceit, aren't
>>you.  you must enjoy it a whole lot.
>>               Wait till we meet in person a*s hole I'll rip you a
>>               new one then too. Hopefully it will be in public
>>               on TV (a real TV) and allow many to see what
>>               real and genuine sincere persons who seek
>>               truth do to lying ego maniacs when
>>               taunted-you have nothing to stand on.
>PH: Where does it say anything about discussion in that quote?
>BK: "taunted" "lying"  How would anyone know what Sherilyn
>BK: was up to on TV if there was no discussion?  How could
>BK: EHW show himself as "sincere" if he was beating someone?

PH: Judging by Ed's previous behaviour on usenet, I would
PH: say that demonstrating sincerity does not appear to be
PH: one of his major concerns.

          "Red Herring" fallacy" - The red herring fallacy
            is committed when the arguer diverts the attention
            of the reader by changing the subject to some
            totally different issue.

BK: His expression was that he was going to show
BK: sincerity, and TV would be the media.  How
BK  could he have been trying to convey the idea
BK: of sincerity on TV while beating someone?

BK: You are diverting the "discussion" from proof
BK: of what EHW was writing to something
BK: altogether different.

>BK: The only physical fights on TV are those between
>BK: consenting adults who have contracted for such
>BK: a fight beforehand.  There is no offense, no "threat"
>BK: in such incidents.

PH: So the fights I saw on TV between protesters and
PH: Serbian police yesterday were consented to by both
PH: parties? The organisers of the protest were saying
PH: that they didn't want any fighting

BK: Oh I see, EHW was, now, supposedly planning to call in
BK: the news media to have TV cameras showing a
BK: "fight" between Sherilyn and himself.

BK: The "consenting adults" scenario was about fist fights
BK;  a planned contest.  That's the usual planned fight
BK:  which occurs on TV between _two persons_..

BK;  Your arguments on this subject, even this latest one
BK: on the subject of threats of physical abuse, are
BK: ludicrious.


   Paranormalists, Astrologers, UFO
    Enthusiasts, New Age, Mysticism
           and the Newsgroups
            What's happening?

  Page Two

| newsgroups | EHW | debate | who | home |