For postings found on other pages of this URL which are noted as having DEJA links, go to  and enter the "From:" address in the space designated author.   Also, enter one of the newsgroups shown in the message header.  Then, look for the correct message.  Later on, will refine their search procedure.
 

has acquired the archives of  DEJA, and they have committed themselves to restoring user access to them all the way back to the year 1995.  For more information, click here.

Self-defensive methods on the INTERNET:

This is for readers looking at these pages to learn how they may incorporporate the methods shown as self-defense on the INTERNET.  First, there is this page about flaming in a way that does not destroy the newsgroups.  Second, there is the page about INTELLIGENT LIFE ON THE NET, and the theory behind the use of WEB PAGES for self-defense.  Third, there is the following method of posting which avoids the back-and-forth bickering, and the waste of time involved in continually writing new posts:

During 1999, the assault continued from John Fitzsimons, unprovoked and with obvious deceit.  I condensed certain portions of these pages and posted them directly, rather than just referring to the URL address of these pages.  This was defense, and it was done by a counter-attack with words of truth.  When you use the truth as a defense, that action is justified.  I have placed pages about Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT).

When references to URLs do not suffice as a deterrent to attackers in newsgroups, then start dividing portions up and posting them completely each day.  As an example, divide your information into 10 portions, and then post every third day.  Be sure you are not cited for "spam."  Repeat the postings after number 10 is finished by commencing again with number 1, 30 days later.  Do this until the attacks stop.

Note:  The use of > > marks, and changing of the number of them, indicates
          a different writer.  Some writing shows the person's initials, and with
          other writing just the > > marks change.

Note:  Some of the wording of Dan Kettler has been modified from what was
           in the original Usenet postings.

Note:  One may verify the existence, and the full context, of quotes by accessing
           the Dejanews Archives, and selecting "power search" after noting dates,
           exact wording which may be copied and pasted, or other data.  Some of
           the references contain links that will bring the reader directly to the text.

Subject: John Fitzsimons... <snip> was: Re: What has this Wollman done?

John Fitzsimons johnf@melbpc.org.au wrote:

> On 8 Mar 1999 16:42:23 GMT, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
> <arcturian1@yahooo.com> wrote:

EHW > >They believe that because I am logical and tell the truth that this
EHW > >somehow is "mean."

JF: > I would expect that your constantly posting your astrology posts to
JF: > the alt.paranormal newsgroup has something to do with it.

DK: It seems, you don't even "suspect" it.
DK: Let the reader examine DEJANEWS, and
DK: determine that: http://www.dejanews.com

DK: It's obvious that Wollmann receives the same lying abusive
DK: attacks whether he posts to alt.paranormal, or just alt.astrology.

DK: Let the reader, if interested, look at my rebuttals and proof
DK: of Fitzsimons' repeated misinformation and word twisting
DK: defamation in DEJANEWS, as well as quotes on these
DK: pages.

DK: I have read and exchanged posts with Fitzsimons, off
DK: and on, for 4 years.  I have recorded the word-twisting,
DK: and noted his level of intelligence, high enough (along with
DK: extensive experience on Usenet) that he would likely not
DK: "suspect" something so ridiculous.

There is more to be noted about Fitzsimons, with accurate quotes
on these web pages.

alt.paranormal has one complete FAQ (question and answer
format--with comprehensive list of questions) with one principal
author (revised and commented upon by others) who actually
believes there is such a thing as the paranormal.  In my
view, that fact is meaningful.

In that FAQ, there is no forbidding of astrology posts in alt.paranormal.
Indeed, astrology is paranormal in nature.

> When I asked why you did this you didn't even have the courtesy
> to reply.

Not replying to someone like yourself, who shows hardly any
respect for intelligent and rational people, is, in my opinion,
quite natural.

You are not worthy of a reply to most of the ridiculous statements
and questions you put forth.  You have shown yourself to be
"buddies" with the most degenerate writers on Usenet, and you
show little other apparent purpose than to defame anyone who
would dare disagree with your views.

I did answer your question, however.  Many of the same people
write denegrating remarks --lies-- about proponents of
the paranormal in alt.astrology and alt.paranormal, for
no other apparent reason other than they wish to express
their bigotry about proponents.

Self-respecting people respect other people who are worthy
of it.  I do not respect you Fitzsimons because you have revealed,
again and again, that you are, basicly, dishonest.  Usually,
you show little or no regard for others except to the extent
that they serve your self-centered purposes.

I serve none of your purposes, hence you have written lies
about me, and attempted to publicly denegrate my character.
The same is true of your writing about Lucianarchy and Edmond
Wollmann.

>         Posting your [Edmond Wollmann] post to :
>         ...news.admin.net-abuse.usenet...

>        ...think that people
>        who see things differently to yourself are automatically "net
>        abusers".

You are a word-twisting, spin-doctor, Fitzsimons.  You have been on the
net long enough to know what a difference of opinion is, and how
that compares to lying abuse and obvious harassment.  You are,
again, as usual, writing falsehood.

>    ...if that is what you believe then that would appear to
>    be a very intolerant stance...

You know that is not what he believes.  Spin doctors, like
yourself, pose these suppositions as questions to avoid the
liar  label, all the while conveying the false impression
that the statements are probably fact.

Only a person capable of respecting others worthy of such, can,
in depth, respect themselves, since all beings are, in essence, a
unity of consciousness.

We can only respect the essence of every being, and if
we don't like what the outward consciousness of some beings
produce, we created it at some level.  So, I understand
that we each create even the (unprovoked) attacks and
defamation of us.  Edmond Wollmann would probably agree
to that.

However, life is filled with paradox, so the responsibity
is upon us all to bring light to the world, and to speak
truth.  You are not a truth teller, however.

Your essence is respected, but the outward consciousness is
looked upon with disgust by myself, and others who have a
discerning spiritual "eye."

Your writing, about and to, nearly anyone who poses some
imagined "threat" to you, or your aims, is nothing short of
lies and attacks.

Though you have accused me of writing out of hate, Fitzsimons, let
me assure you that my purpose, here, is to expose you to the
readers, not to hurt you.  In fact, I hope that you are helped.

My writing on these pages is, partly, to help you.  Some day, I hope,
you will read it, and contemplate the destructive, and self-destructive
momentum of your words.

>  ****************************************************
>   ,-._|\    John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
>  /  Oz  \   http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
>  \_,--.x/   http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
>        v
******************************************************

On December 22, 1998 John Fitzsimons writes:

            "The major abuse has come from a supposed proponent
             of the paranormal..."

The complete text is is the Dejanews archives, and may be linked here.

He is writing that the "major abuse" in the newsgroup alt.paranormal comes from me, supposedly,
not from the Pseudo-Skeptic fanatics.  This "supposed proponent" reference is ridiculous.

I had written nothing about John Fitzsimons in months, yet he continued this attack about me.  In
complete context, he was writing about abuse of anyone toward anyone, not just him.  The obvious
fact, and I believe it is obvious to him, is that "the major abuse" has come from fanatics.

For all false accusations about me, Dan Kettler, the truth of the matter can be ascertained by following
instructions at...

               http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html#accuse

He also wrote that  I have...

     ...even gone
     to the trouble to devote
     (web) hate pages to me....

Obviously, from the above, he's referring to me, since he mentioned "Bruce," and referred to no other person
about such web pages.

This page, and others, are defense and exposure, not expressions of hatred.

FITZSIMONS WRITES TO Lucianarchy

       Maybe there is something about your postings
       that upsets people ?

My reply:

       There is something about Luci.  She writes the
       truth. You, Fitzsimons,  write lies.

From: dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com (Dan Kettler)
Subject: John Fitzsimons

(Exchange was during April 1998 and full text is in the USENET archives Use "power search")

>< snip >

>>More on this habitual liar, and non-stop flamer, at:

<reference snipped out by John Fitzsimons>

>> ...That is a good example of civility ?   Ha ha ha.

Dan Kettler wrote:

You seem not to comprehend, evidently, that by showing what
civility is not, that one can see what civility is.

Allow me to try to help you understand.   Perhaps I was not clear
enough earlier.

2.   By pointing to my uncivility, like placing your name
      in a header because you had been uncivil to me, I
      can point out that not putting your name in a header
      would have been civil.  Thus the lesson of what is
      civil would be shown.

Yes, civility is understood when I write about Jon Walsh, and it is also shown with Intelligent Life on the Net.  My example shows what Jon Walsh is not: honest.
That way people can see what real honesty would be like, by seeing what not to do.  Likewise, Jon Walsh shows lack of sense.  One can readily see that by avoiding the type of irrational writing he places, they can write intelligently.

You don't get it, do you?

Intelligent Life On The Net shows what unintelligent life is: an absense of sense, honesty, and civility.

Note your name in the header.  I remember you objecting to having your name in headers.  You don't like that.  I'm being uncivil.
That's an example of lack of civility on the net.

I have, many times, written that I am not necessarily civil  toward people who are uncivil toward me.  I've written that one should not
flame a person, unless flamed first.  It's in postings of mine, as well as my website at /flame.html

Habitually, you have written uneducated criticism of my  writing.  I believe that disagreement with myself or anyone is fine, but you have
been in harassing mode.  I wrote of your 15 posts one day, and you sarcastically commented that the next day you would make it more.

You have recently been rather nasty in your public writing of me,  with veiled threats.

I have no qualms about being uncivil with you.

Do you understand?

That is an example of what civility is, by pointing out my  uncivil act: writing your name in a header, which you object to.

Now, back to the posting you seem to object to:

DK:  "More on this habitual liar, and non-stop flamer..."

Jon Walsh is a habitual liar.  Anyone who pays attention will tell you  that.  Ron Bobo asked him the question, in a post, if it were
psychologically possible for him to tell the truth.  The fact that flames are practically the only thing he writes is easy for  the intelligent
observer to see.

The fact is that a large amount of the flames and lies have been  about me.  That gives me the right, in my opinion, to be uncivil while
writing against uncivility.

Yet, you question my writing about civility while being uncivil  in my writing to him?

John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense.  Here, we have an  example of writing, from John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense.  So, to
find the examples of your uncivility, John, one need only look at DEJANEWS, where "paranoid" is used in reference  to me.  To see your
lack of sense, one only needs to read the above.  Your dishonesty shows by cutting out one sentence of my writing, then posting it, and denying
that it mattered when I  called you on it in a post.

So, if you really like my dissecting the whole meaning of  SENSE-HONESTY-CIVILITY in my posts, with examples of your writing, keep it
up, John.

And, in case you thought my writing of S.H.C. was about skeptics,  you can see by this example, your writing, and you not being a pseudo-skeptic,
and the others I've written about who are not pseudo-skeptics, that this is not about skeptics.  That fact seemed to go completely over your head in
a former post you replied to.  Now, quite vividly, you will have a clear view of what about a certain thing means.  No, this is not about skeptics,
though examples from their writing is included in the series.

More on what

          SENSE
          HONESTY
          and
          CIVILITY

are on the INTERNET, access this URL:

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

>Note your name in the header.

John wrote:

>>Golly ! How right you are.! <snip the chidlish stupidity>

Dan:

Yes, see, I put your name in the header because I know you  object to that.  It means I was uncivil.  My point is that had I not done so, that would have been civil.  That's a lesson in civility.

Gosh, you might be able to see this, after all.

However, I don't think you understood the part about how you have been uncivil, attacking me in many posts.  And, I don't think you understood how my replying with uncivility, though uncivil, was a lesson in civility.

And, I don't think you comprehended the lesson, or learned the lesson, either.  After
all, you were trying to teach me to do certain things by threatening me with more than
15 posts a day of attacks on me, with words like "paranoia," etc.

> I remember you objecting to having your name in headers.

John Fitzsimons: Wow. Not only elephants have a good memory then ?

Dan:  That's childish John.  Is that what you would say when you were 9?
 

Dan:  > You don't like that.  I'm being uncivil.  That's an example
         > of lack of civility on the net.

>>> Yep. Another example. Nice to see you beginning
>>> to understand things better.
 

Dan:  Yes, I already understood it, but you don't seem to have that capacity.

>I have, many times, written that I am not necessarily civil
>toward people who are uncivil toward me.

John Fitzsimons:   Yes, we have noticed that.   :-)

>  I've written that
>  one should not flame a person, unless flamed first.  It's in
>  postings of mine, as well as my website at /flame.html

JF:  No, one shouldn't flame people at all.   :-)
 

Dan Kettler:

Now let's see if you can comprehend an analogy here, John.  Suppose someone believes that people should not commit murder, and he/she tells people that.  Then he/she kills someone in self-defense to save their own life.  What then?  Does that make he/she a hypocrite?  They killed someone didn't they?

No, I'll bet you still don't understand it.

Let me try again.  See, John, I have patience even with your  "mind."  To have to spell this out like this to you must be some indication to you of how slowly you grasp simple concepts.
 

Dan Kettler:

Example:

I'm on the INTERNET, and someone lies about me.  I call them a  liar.  To bring the point home, I show the person is a habitual liar, and that aids my defense.  Am I to allow people to believe the lie is true?

How about another example?  Suppose I read something about me in a newspaper, and it's not true.  In addition to financial restitution, don't I want it public what that person has lied about me, since their lie had been public?  Additionally, if they lie habitually about me and others, don't I want that known to make the fact that they lied even more believable?

Isn't that what you criticized me about doing, in my writing of Jon  Walsh?

Well, you must might get it?

See, John, by calling me a "hypocrite" in this post I'm answering, in addition to all
the other verbal attacks on my character these past few weeks, I am no longer showing
restraint.

I am making it plain and evident to everyone reading this, just what you are made of.
 

Dan:

             Habitually, you have written uneducated criticism of my writing.

Fitzsimons:

             Of course. Anything you disagree with is  "uneducated",  "not cool" etc.

Dan:

            You are a liar.  When you write of my supposed "hate" writing
            and you have shown, obviously, that you never read it,
            that's undeducated.  I pointed out exactly what "uneducated"
            meant.  You are ignoring that fact, here, in your writing.

           "Not cool" are repeated attacks at 15 to 20 posts a day.  That
           had nothing to do with disagreement with me.  I was very clear
           in my wording of the posts with the words "not cool" that this
           was not disagreement with the allegations, but disagreement
           with your non-stop flames.

Dan:

         The above two paragraph, combined with the USENET archives prove
         you are a liar, John Fitzsimons.  http://www.dejanews.com

Dan:

>I believe that disagreement with myself or anyone is fine,

Fitzsimons:

        So that is why you participate in flame
        wars and do your hate posts eh ?    :-)

Dan:

         Further on in this post you call me a hypocrite.  You initiated
         these flames toward me.  I responded.  You are the hypocrite,
         not me.  A hypocrite, as I see it, is the initiator of flames and
         character assassination who says people should not flame, not the
         defender.  The hypocrite is the liar, while the defender who
         writes the truth is not. However, I think you are still lacking
         the ability to comprehend that.

          You being the initiator of this, I can say, with the evidence of
          DEJANEWS, (www.dejanews.com) that you are the hypocrite, here.
          You have been flaming me, and I have defended myself.  You are
          writing that people should not flame others, yet you started
          this.  That makes you the hypocrite.

Dan:

>but you have been in harassing mode.  I wrote of your 15
>posts one day, and you sarcastically commented that the next day
>you would make it more.

Dan:

          And, there is a difference between disagreeing with a person,
          which I feel is right to do, and writing non-stop flames in the
          order of 15 to 20 per day as you have done.

Dan:

The following you wrote, makes you a liar:

            Golly. Did I do that ? Gee. Did I threaten
            to exceed some "quota" that you have set
            for posters ?

No, and you know that.  You are writing deception here.  It's
nasty remarks about me at 15 to 20 per day, not a quota about
posts.

Again, Fitzsimons, you are a liar:

           If so then why don't you limit your
           posts so you don't exceed your own quota ?

Obviously, I'm writing about flames about me, not the
number of ordinary posts.

Dan Kettler:

>You have recently been rather nasty in your public writing of me,
>with veiled threats.

Fitzsimons:

            Aren't you the guy who didn't seem to
            understand what "nasty" was ? Oh, you
            have looked up a dictionary eh ? "Nasty",
            as in the comments you made about <snip> on
            your web pages ?

Dan:

So, you justify flaming me, non-stop, because you don't like what
I placed on my web pages about someone else.  That makes it
okay, the way you "think."  Additionally, you should
in nearly all your posts to be totally ignorant of the facts
surrounding this matter you referred to.

Dan:

>I have no qualms about being uncivil with you.

Fitzsimons:

>>>Is that supposed to be news ? You have no qualms about
>>>being  uncivil with anyone.    :-)

Anyone who's nasty, as you have been with me, I have that right.

>Do you understand?

>>>Sure do.   :-)

Dan:

Gosh, no you do not.  You understand the fact, but the
significance of the fact goes completely over your head.

<snip>

Dan:

>The fact is that a large amount of the flames and lies have been
>about me.  That gives me the right, in my opinion, to be uncivil
>while writing against uncivility.

Fitzsimons:

>>>You admit to being "uncivil" while writing against
>>>uncivility ?

Dan:

Yes, it's the same logic as defending a person who kills in self
defense, while saying one should not commit murder.  Both are
killing.

Yes, it's the same logic as one would use in prosecuting libel,
and all the while doing the same thing the libeler did with
lies, only doing it with the truth.

On usenet in my rebuttals, which are uncivil, I tell the truth,
while exposing the attackers lies.

The difference between truth and falsehood seem to not mean too
much to you.

I'd say that's because you are a liar, obviously.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fitzsimons:

      Saying people should do something while doing
      it yourself. Let's see, that reminds me of a
      word. Now what is it ?
 

Dan:

Oh, you are so funny, Fitzsimons.  HA HA HA!

Fitzsimons:

      Let's see.........looking in the Collins
      English Dictionary,,,
 

Dan:

Oh, the suspense is killing me.  Will he use that...oh my god...
will he acutally call me what he, John Fitzsimons  _actually is_
a hypocrite?

Oh, my gosh!

<snip>

John Fitzsimons:

                      HYPOCRISY :

                    "the practice of professing standards, beliefs,
                      etc. contrary to one's real behaviour .."

Dan:

On has to pretend one is not doing certain things.  Since I have a WEB
PAGE /flame.html, and have repeatedly written that I do flame in
rebuttal, that makes me not a hypocrite.

Since you are always writing about my flaming and how I should
not do it, and flaming all the while, that makes you a hypocrite.
Your pretense, with your veiled threats, and your sarcasm to hide
the true intent, makes you more than a hypocrite, it makes you a
lying hypocrite.

Do you get it, yet?  Are you yet able to use your mind?

          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.   :-)

No, it looks like you writing it repeatedly, makes you repeatedly reveal what lacks in your "mind" - incapable of a good grasp of the English Language, or of logic.
 

Fitzsimons:

       You can write about anything you like.
       Many of us would prefer however to talk
       about the paranormal. <snip> wounded
       pride i.e. "He said about me..." etc.
       etc. etc.
 

Dan Kettler:

Then why are you continuing to write nasty remarks, lies, and 15-20 posts of flames about me?  Isn't it your "wounded pride"?
 

Dan Kettler

Aren't you the hypocrite, pretending to write about the  paranormal, only complaining about my writing about something else?  You are such a lying hypocrite, John Fitzsimons!
 

Dan Kettler

>Yet, you question my writing about civility while being uncivil  in my writing to him?
 

Dan Kettler

>>John Fitzsimons, that does not make sense.
 

Fitzsimons:

>>> Read my posts a little slower. That might help.
 

Dan:

          Read mine.

<snip>
 

Fitzsimons:

        I think what you really meant to say was
        "Here, we have an example of writing, from
        John Fitzsimons, that does not make
        sense to me."

        Yep. That reads better and makes more "sense".
 

Dan:

No, John, I have written the sense, and your writing is nonsense.  I've made that clear, not by stating it, but by proving it with facts and logic.  Your writing is nothing but assertion.

>So, to find the examples of your uncivility, John, one
>need only look at DEJANEWS, where "paranoid" is used in reference
>to me.

>>>My "uncivility" ? Gee, if I am found "guilty"
>>>what is my  "punishment" ?  I hope it isn't
>>>"To read more dopey FAQs, charters,
>>>and "civility" posts from you ?"