Hate Cults permeating the Internet

                       by Dan Kettler
 

I read, recently, in a Usenet Newsgroup, the word:...

                                         SKEP-TI-CULT

...in the signature of a person's postings.  He said that "cult" means:

            a system of religious worship
                                 or
            devoted attachment

               ...from the dictionary definitions.

The word "cult" has has a meaning the media stirred up.  When I use the word, I mean all that the media attached to it...

fanatical hatred
brainwashing
suicidal tendencies
character assassination

         More on my writing of so-called "skepticism" as a cult at:

         http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
 

When Margaret Thaler Singer wrote: Cults In Our Midst

...and when other authors write of "cults" they are not referring to "devoted attachment."  They are writing about irrational hatred, intimidation tactics, and blind fanaticism.  That is the common interpretation of "cult" in American English Usage, today.

              Humans are vulnerable to influence.

Cults are of many varying and even opposite beliefs.  One example of this are the two opposing cults of Communism and Anti-Communism -- both now nearly dead.  Similarly, there can be a cult around the belief in spirits, and another around the religious belief that one must help rid the world of the so-called "superstition" of belief in spirits.

  Margaret Thaler Singer, from Cults In Our Midst:

          Today's programs are designed to destabalize
          the individuals sense of self by undermining
          his or her basic consciousness, reality
          awarness, beliefs and worldview, emotional
          control, and defense mechanisms.

And, what do we see in the "Knights" of Tim Hill, self-proclaimed "Monarch" of the Usenet Newsgroup alt.fan.art-bell?  We see inferiority complexes, addiction to titles like "Knight," showing much of their sense of self-worth coming from their attachment to Tim Hill or some organization.  There's nothing wrong with titles, but the addiction and flaunting of them is what I'm referring to.

Chapter 9 deals with:

                "The Threat of Intimidation"

...and if the reader will look at my above referenced web pages they will see abundant evidence of a cult-like tendency to attempt to intimidate me, and stop me from exposing them.

Just reading Usenet, along with my rebuttals, you will see lying attack after attack on my person because I have exposed them.  Look up my postings to USENET...

Previous years Usenet Posts of Dan Kettler

One may verify that many of the accusations against me are false, by following the instructions from here.

Page 229:

      ...result of helping and treating current and
      former cult members...attempts to defame these
      individuals character...

...and the above is shown again and again, on Usenet, and the Web with people attempting to defame my character, and the character of others through obvious and rebutted lies.  Other accusations about me are allegations of pornography on the net, shown incorrect at this site.  Another are repeated accusations of my alleged incoherence.

Using Dejanews, see the December 1997 references to FAQs from the "SKEP-TI-CULT." (www.skepticult.org)  They were actually writing it for alt.paranormal to forbid me from annoncing my URL, on USENET, which exposes "skeptics":

        http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm.

The FAQs proposed read as follows:

================================================================
         6.  WHAT SPAM IS ACCEPTABLE?

         In a nutshell, none.

         <snip>

         Repeated citation of a commercial URL
         within posts is inappropriate.

         Repetitive "robo-spam" posts are also
         inappropriate.  Anything else that is
         considered spam, by Usenet convention,
         is obviously unacceptable.

         Those, who wish to post, commercial spam,
         mindlessly repetitive posts, or massive
         cross-posting, so-called, should place
         their spam, in a more appropriate newsgroup,
         such as: alt.fan.bruce-kettler
=============================================================

Though on the surface, the above may not seem so, it is  written expressly to censor me, to keep me from exposing  the CULT of so-called "skeptics."  The definition of "spam" is the cult's own, and not accurate at all.

What, then, is "spam"?  Click here to find out.

As absurd as this is, the proposed FAQs were placed by the following poster to Usenet, someone who's sole intent was to take over the Newsgroup alt.paranormal, and who has no interest in the paranormal.

Here, to follow, is another example of censorship...

The following shows what has been called "spam" and is actually not that...:

Propaganda writing, which could discourage people from reposting, has been placed in the newsgroups.  I have answered this propaganda in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.  My reply makes the following clear, and because the detailed rebuttal to it was not considered valid, the following remains fact:

                       1. It is permissible to reference your URL in posts, to point to information about pseudo-skeptic fanatics.  Banners placed on the pages
                           do not, necessarily, cause it to be "spam."

                       2. It is permissible to repost below the spam thresholds.

                       3. In your reposting, you may place identical wording that invites others to repost, and those
                           words, properly placed, will not add to the count that would cause your writing to be "spam."

Here is a discussion about censorship with a variety of links which, when verified with the Dejanews archives, prove this censoring, and attempted censoring activity.

         Usenet Posting:

> Subject: Re: Pear Establishes... /CULTS
> bhenry@spamfree.polarnet.com (dr. digger)
> Fri, 26 Dec 1997 12:07:27 GMT

> Here we have robo-spam, commercial spam and repetitive
> reference to a commercial  website, all in 1 post.  This, DAN,
> is an example of why all the above are discouraged in the a.p.
> [alt.paranormal] FAQ.

None of this was actually "spam" as it was merely pointing to URLS that expose the habits of these CULTISTS, not pointing to any advertising of services or products, and not nearly in the frequency that might be required to be spam, such as 20 identical posts in a single newsgroup within 45 days.

This Cult of so-called "skeptics" has, over a period of more than a year, repeatedly referred to my non-commercial Web Page of links, called Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena, scistudy.html, spam.  Whenever I've referred to the page that exposes their Hate Cult, they have called that "spam" also.  My exposure of lack of sense, honesty, and civility through posts that, at the present frequency of posting, do not individually appear more often than approximately once each 6 months, has also been called "spam."

In an effort to protect their own interests, they are obviously working toward censoring my writing on Usenet.

During April and May 1998, an aggressive campaign of lies was launched against me, in an attempt to wipe out my ISP accounts.

Fortunately, one ISP, Pcisys, that had encountered similar lies during July 1997 regarding my account, (see DEJANEWS: www.deja.com for "NY Times destroys truth, tells lies") did not pay any attention to Sherilyn or others, since I'd recently alerted them to this problem.

By the way, www.pcisys.com has dialups from 250 cities in  the USA.

One allegation, which is absolutely false, was that I'd used the Compuserve Account to send unsolicited e-mails.  My account was deactivated for a few days,and then restarted.  Compuserve had only will now avoid their staff reacting to this sort of fanaticism, again, with my account.

The CULTIST bragging the most in the newsgroup alt.paranormal about this ability she and others have, was:

          Sherilyn <Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk>

...who, with the aid of other FANATIC CULTISTS, had  previously managed to get accounts taken from Edmond Wollmann.

These CULTISTS fake e-mail addresses to give the illusion of  large numbers when they write complaints to IPSs.

Often enough, certain ISPs will discontinue accounts based  upon the numbers of complaints without prior investigatigation of the allegations.

 Page 220:

           From university professors and students
           to journalists, reporters and writers,
           those who study cults have consistently
           come upon one particularly disturbing
           aspect of the cult world.  It has become
           apparent over time that, when researchers
           are critical of certain cult activities
           or features, some of the groups attempt
           to suppress such findings and opinions
           and silence their critics through both
           subtle and overt intimidation in a variety
           of forms.

To see exactly how the above description, from Cults In Our Midst applies to writing about me on Usenet, read the following, and the links from the page:

           http://www.psicounsel.com/afabinfo.html

What can be done about all this?  See links from:

             http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html

             and

             http://www.psicounsel.com/whattodo.html

How does this CULT activity amount to censorship?:

             http://www.psicounsel.com/faqchaos.html