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?
BDK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[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
BDK
In article <342399D2.CF851F6D@geocities.com>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
>Could it be??? Nah, must be Bruce in drag. The _real_ kristine doesn't
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
["Bruce," above, is reference to me, BDK.]
--
-----------------
Subject: Re: Danian Brinkly
In article <5vq7i6$enc@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, shiela@ix.netcom.com
>Does anybody know how Danian is doing?
o, who the f**k cares? go away.
[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]
went to your web page
<snip>
what a bunch of crapola.
<snip>
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
Those were public postings, not "letters,"
and I don't have "followers."
BDK
whining about how they just can't cope with all
these bullies who post in alt.paranormal.
BDK CONTINUED:
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,
5. Ridicule -- Rather than just addressing the
issue they ridicule those who have a belief.
===============================================================
COMMENT FROM POSTER:
(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)
Score THE FIRST -- ONE SO FAR for:
2. "you said ...." when a person really said
or meant something else
BDK COMMENT FROM POSTER:
(gee, i thought these were only employed by the
OPPOSITION, but you have learned your lessions well).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not condemn others for differences
of opinion,
Those of this sick cult, ridicule
people for their statements
CONTINUED:
mr. kettler,
/snip\
...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).
Click here
to read Edmond's writing about so-called "skeptics." His web site is linked
here.
BDK NEXT PAGE ---
FIRST
PAGE ---- HOME PAGE
>like us anymore.
as bruce the moronic coward is...
kristine
Queen of the Venom Spewers
From: gopens@don'tfrigginspammedeltanet.com (Kristine Campbell)
Date: 1997/09/20
Message-Id:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.art-bell
[More Headers]
(shiela) wrote:
--
kristine
Queen of the Venom Spewers
Newsgroups: alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranormal
Subject: hey brian...what a load of crap
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:44:27 -0800
Click here for posts
from "regulars" of paranormal type newsgroups
CONTINUED:
The quotes are mostly from the "regulars,"
the one's who have posted regularly for about a year.
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.
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.
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.
whether that of actual skepticsm
or outright disbelief.
about the way they see reality,
or their reports of others.
BDK
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.