Watch the free 5 minute video on this page, showing masses of Mexican illegals taking to the streets, demonstrating.One U.S. Citizen peacefully demonstrated against the illegals, and was assaulted. His vehicle
was damaged. He was also brutalized by the police, and arrested. The Seattle Washington USA police cheered to celebrate the Mexican illegal's victory over the American Citizen.
Form ObjectDo the Mexican illegals know why they have been lied to and baited to come to the U.S.? Do they understand the Globalist rulers of the U.S. and Mexico have a trap set for them after they have been used? "Divide and conquer" is a method the globalists have used against all people of the planet.
Turn the tide against the globalists. Brown, black, white, and red skinned people, wherever you come from, if we don't unite, if we don't "hang out" together, we'll all hang separately - from ropes.
Mexican illegals have come to the United States to share in the "American Dream." That dream is for greater wealth and liberty. The wealth and the liberty is being gradually stolen from United States Citizens. The Mexicans will not enjoy an "American Dream" if it is turned to a nightmare. They will also be victims of the poverty and tyranny unless we all work together to stop the Globalist thieves and murderers.
Bruce Kettler
Winston Wu DEBUNKING SKEPTICS
Revision: May 2005
By "skeptic," when used in quotes, I am most definately not referring to those who exhibit actual skepticism. As it has been said, skepticism is "healthy." Actually, we are all skeptical. With present world conditions if everyone believed all they heard or read we'd experience much misery.
Brainwashing is common with cults, and it's typical for such cultists to attribute very different meanings to the words they use. It's often quite different than both the dictionary and general public's interpretation.
Not all who call themselves "a skeptic" do this, but, typically, the label "skeptic" means a cult member who is not skeptical of "claims of the paranormal," but rather one who is very sure that no-such thing as the paranormal exists. The word "investigation" in the actual practice of these people means, to them, an attempt to prove preconceived ideas, not to find out if the claims are based upon real evidence.
The change of meanings is just one example of how reality get's twisted around in their minds, with futile attempts to twist the minds of others.
Words have connotations, and the publicly understood meanings change with contribution from the media. As an example, "cult" no longer has just the old common dictionary meaning, but it conjurs up some very negative associations now, not just amongst a small group, but in the minds of the general public.
If a certain cult type of so-called "skeptics" are not really skeptics what name can be accurately attributed to them?
"Pseudo-skeptic" is one, as shown in this reference.
Why do pseudo-skeptics do what they do?
This is an in depth view at what I term,
the SKEP-TI-CULT ® (see
reference) "SKEP-TI-CULT"
is not a certain organization in this
writing. It's a mentality.
For postings found on this and other linked pages 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.
|
|
|
| Here are links to other writing that shows similar findings from research about so-called "skeptics." |
|
Find this site again at www.yahoo.com --- type these words: "skeptics what they do and why"
|
|
|
NEWS about James Randi and the alleged 1 million dollar prize for psychic proof |
|
|
|
Ingo Swann, the originator of Remote Viewing, on "skeptics" |
|
|
Are these web pages over-generalization? What is over-generalization? | Opinions of writers to Usenet about pseudo-skeptic activity in Newsgroups |
HOME- Beginning of this WWW Site for:
|
|
Links |
|
The New World Order |
|
|
Click at underlined portion, below, to access Fate Magazine's sTARBABY
sTARBABY
Insider, Dennis Rawlins tells on CSICOP
C ommittee for the
S cientific
I nvestigation of
C laims of the
P aranormal
New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism & the Citadel of Science
What does CSICOP's publication have to say about their plans to make changes with American Paranormal Documentary Programming?
Examples:
Sightings
The Visitor
Psi Factor
X-Files
Strange Universe
Find out, by linking directly to CSICOP's publication on the World Wide Web.
Do you want to live to be 120 years old?
Do you want to be vigorous and healthy during those years?
Did you know that aging is a treatable medical condition?
Order Stopping The Clock Today.
From: Brian Zeiler <bdzeiler@sprynet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
Subject: CSICOP groupie Gary Posner illustrates the essence of "skepticism"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 03:38:19 -0700
Organization: Project Sigma
There is a possibility that a rebuttal from B.D. Zieler will be placed at this link.
Link to Dr. Gary Posner, MD. rebuttal at his web siteDr. Gary Posner, MD and cult leader of the Tampa Bay Skeptics wrote the following in "Faulty Sense of Reality", published in "Skeptical Inquirer", 3(2), p. 79:
"[Believers in the paranormal may be] afflicted with a thought disorder that manifests in... a faulty sense of reality... [their] irrational behavior... may be more compatible with a diagnosis of ambulatory schizophrenia... than with mere naivete."
So, once again, we see the basic pseudoscientific line of argumentation of the "skeptics": instead of addressing the claims with the specificity demanded of the scientific method and the protocols of logical debate, Posner chooses to assert that his opponents suffer from a pathological medical condition, a bold claim for which Posner apparently has no burden of proof. Posner, a self-styled "skeptic" forgets that in science, criticisms of claims must be specific, not vague attacks -- much less vague attacks on mental stability.
Posner, like most "skeptics", will cloak the shocking irrationality of his amazingly pseudoscientific claim in the holy robes of "science", thus lending a false sense of scientific legitimacy to an approach more consistent with witch hunts and crowd madness than with the scientific methodology which he ironically claims to defend. In reality, he only denigrates that which he purports to promote.
Thank you, Posner, for illustrating the essence of "skepticism" in a way that is highly effective in discrediting any sense of objectivity and scientific rationality that you might have hoped to enjoy. Of course, your fellow skeptic cult members will simply laugh and congratulate you, but that's only to be expected.
How did the scientific community morally deteriorate to such a level where base instinct overrides the logical faculties? Posner's comments are the antithesis of scientific methodology and logical debate, yet CSICOP promotes such intolerable, fanatical viewpoints nevertheless, all while cloaking their zealous agenda of dogmatic fascism in the ruse of objective science.
-- Brian Zeiler
From this writing, you may obtain a more complete understanding of the "violent emotional and illogical reactions" of the so-called "skeptics."
It's about CSICOP'S origin and the belief systems of its members.
Read Jean van Gemert's writing about CSICOP.
Click Here
More interesting data about CSICOP by George Hanson. Download this ADOBE ACROBAT "pdf" file.
Please Tell us about this site:
Was the content interesting? Were colors and design pleasing? Were you informed? Do you want to hear of improvements? Do you have questions?
NEXT PAGE--- HOME PAGE --- KRISTINE
USENET POSTING:
[comments in brackets are mine--BDK--]
From wizard@primenet.com (wizard) Tue Dec 10 14:52:05 1996
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology
alt.religion.shamanism
alt.paranormal
alt.pagan.magick
alt.religion.wicca
alt.pagan
alt.paranet.psi
Subject: Re: Scientific Evidence for Astrology
Date: 10 Dec 1996 14:52:05 -0700
In article oneal@astro.psu.edu (Doug O'Neal) wrote:
>In article wizard@primenet.com (Wizard) writes:
> >In article rjackson@southwind.net (Ryan
> Thomas Jackson) writes:
/snip\
[Wizard writes:]
As I have written before, pseudo-skeptics, such as Doug, will NEVER be satisfied. Look what happened here. Somebody shows success with astrology and Doug replies, THAT¹S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO CONVINCE ME!
[The so-called "skeptic," Doug O'Neal, replies:]
No, bonehead, [typical name-calling] what I have done is offer an alternative explanation for your claim. In order to convince me, you have to offer evidence that my explanation is wrong. You have not done this. And what the hell is a "pseudo-skeptic"? Being skeptical [One might first check with the dictionary before attributing inaccurate meanings to the word "skeptic"] is part of my job and my character. So is believing something after it has been sufficiently demonstrated. Astrology hasn't. In fact, it hasn't come close.
1) First, I did not make a claim about astrology [A habit of pseudo-skeptics is to answer questions and reply to "claims" that are non-existent. It's delusional behavior] other than that pseudo-skeptics won¹t accept any amount of evidence and documentation. Therefore, it is a waste of time to argue about astrology with them.
2) You have offered no ³explanation.² All you demanded was more proof. This completely agrees with my previous statements.
3) A skeptic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in something until proof is provided one way or the other. Don¹t take my word for it; look it up in a dictionary. A pseudo-skeptic is a person who calls himself or herself a skeptic, but in reality has already made up his or her mind.
4) You clearly show your attitude against astrology. That is NOT the neutral, pre-decision attitude of true skeptics.
5) You qualify as a pseudo-skeptic.
[Wizard continues:]
You see, Doug has already made up his mind what astrology is and is not and what astrologers should and should not be able to do with it. He has REDEFINED astrology so that it will NEVER meet his criteria of proof, NEVER.
[The "skeptic" replies:]
If it ever does, I'll start believing in it. But I have many, many objections that haven't been dealt with. And when I raise them, most astrologers start screaming and crying about how they don't need to offer demonstration. [It seems to him a "scream," when it's usually only a calm statement. The attitude of this cult is that those who advocate astrology, psychic phenomena, or unidentifiable spacecraft as having authenticity, must prove it. It's an unrealistic attitude.]
[Wizard continues:]
Exactly. But no matter how many of your objections are answered, you will always raise more. Your ego is locked into your position and you will defend that even if it goes against logic and reason until you die.
<snip>From: John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan)
The Pseudo-Skeptic, what is it?
Well, Webster's New World Dictionary defines the word `Pseudo' as follows:
PSEUDO Adj. Sham, False, spurious, pretended, countfeit
1. Fictitious, pretended or sham (pseudonum) 2. Counterfeit or spurious (pseudodepigrapha) 3. Closely or deceptively similar to (a specific thing) (pseudomorph) 4. Not corresponding to reality; illusory 5. (Chem.) An isomer or related form of (a specific com- pound)
Skeptic is defined as: 1. A member of any of the ancient Greek Philosopher
Schools that denied the Possibility of real knowledge of any kind 2. a
person who believes in or practices philosophical Skepticism.
3. a person who habitually doubts, ques- tions, or suspends judgement
upon mat- ters generally accepted. 4. a person who doubts religous doctrine.
Now, since I created the word, or came up with it independently of others, I get to define the word. :) That is how this stuff works, after all. In my Definition, I use the two root words (Listed and defined above).
Psuedo-Skeptic Noun.
A person who imitates those who habitually doubts, questions of suspends judgement upon matters generally accepted, by the basic use of the denial of facts presented enhanced by use of tactics of which includes insults, false or no valid data, out right lies, the wilfull spread of misinform- ation and disinformation, altering true facts to suit their purpose and the general belief of a lie being told enough times that it will become the truth.
Psuedo-Skeptics who have beliefs different than other Pseudo-Skeptics will rush to the aid of their brethern, often citing items they consider as true, but which are not. They depend heavily upon personal attacks, falsifying data, improperly presenting data, and implying things they later deny implying. The often segregate into cult-like groups, and each group targets a particular person or thing as their specialty for their attacks. Some PS Cults flock to a Person or Group, and takes whatever that person or group says as if it was word of God himself.
Most of all, the Pseudo-Skeptic will not accept the rights of others to believe as they wish, or talk on the subjects they wish to speak on. When they are told they are wrong, they immediately blame some believer for beginning the whole mess.
These people live their lives in the Witch-hunter, or Spanish Inquisition, mentallity. They seek out those who believe to denounce them as frauds and figuratively burn them at the stake.
Most Pseudo-Skeptics are of low mentallity, or a singular mentality. They may be experts in one field, but know very little about anything else that pertains to the real world. They often have comprehension problems for any thing outside their particular field of expertise.
The Best way to handle the Pseudo-Skeptic is to clearly state your case, then ignore them. This drives them nuts when they get no reactions, except from their own brood. A Pseudo-Skeptic that is watched, but not paid any other attention to, often is reduced to a snivelling, immature Whelp, who eventually goes away or places himself in the position where even his own kind tend to ignore him (or her).
The Male Pseudo-Skeptic is the chest beater of the group. Their methods are easily seen and defended against. They are also often the more immature of the species. The Female Pseudo-Skeptic also can be a chest beater (which is fun to watch) but more often the most intelligent of the group. They are also more cunning and better speakers. They are also the most dangerous, for the usually resort to the `Pity the poor girl' methodology when their attacks are returne , they usually know how to plead for sympathy.
Beware the pseudo-skeptic, their only intent is to disrupt and belittle.
There is no easy way to beat them, the best is to lead them along so that they publically beat themselves. With the right amount of rope, the Psuedo-Skeptic is more than willing to hang themselves.
-=> Asmodeus@Doitnow.com <=-
... Sects, sects, sects. Is that all you monks ever think about?
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Click here
for a listing of "Overseers" of alt.paranormal
=======================================================
From: Janice <JayAVogelsong@netscape.net> [GOOGLE archive of this post]
Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body
Subject: Re: OBE FAQ
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:28:54 -0400
Message-ID: <MPG.193c18e2d7cdefee989a89@news.cis.dfn.de>
In article <Xns93876FBD6CA0Fnomailhotmailcom@167.206.3.2>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...
>I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately if I started a killfile, that would
>mean that I would miss a lot of interesting posts. Although your private
>newsgroups are a great idea, not too many people use them.
JANICE: Yes, that's always been the way with them. There will
JANICE: be a flareup of the old skeptic/believer battle, people
JANICE: who would rather get out of the heat join the private
JANICE: boards, then after awhile they stop using them.
<snip>
DK NOTE: "get out of the heat" means to get out of the newsgroups because of the activities of so-called "skeptics.".
--
Alt.Out-of-Body Unlimited:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The Lucid Dreaming Nook:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/nook1.html
=======================================================
From: antoine_the_leaf@hotmail.com (Antoine The Leaf)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Date: 19 Jun 2003 04:14:22 -0700
To many people Hate the expieriencers.......
Sceptics are the Real closed minded ones.......
This NG [newsgroup] would Be better if they would leave us alone.......
Best regards,
Antoine
=======================================================
Message-ID: <3ED8DC44.30ABA929@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM>
From: DanKettler [GOOGLE archive of this post]
Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body,alt.paranormal
Subject: ALT.OUT-OF-BODY and ALT.PARANORMAL SHOULD NOT PANDER TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE
THE AGENDA OF DESTROYING ITS VERY EXISTENCE...Re: OBE FAQ
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 16:46:36 GMT
E N Argye wrote:> I am getting extremely frustrated at what seems to be attempts to turn this
> newsgroup into a sci newsgroup. Mention of topics like Occam's Razor do not
> belong here, IMHO. If I wanted to learn about scientific investigation, I
> would join a science newsgroup or journal club.
And, you would probably want to post to sci.skeptic. That reminds me of
a post from one of the founders of alt.paranormal.
"I started this newsgroup in 1990 in an effort to
create a forum in which people could simply share
their experiences and what they speculated or believed
about them without being hounded by skeptics to prove
anything."
"If you want to debate proof then take it to sci.skeptic
and other skeptic newsgroups and LEAVE IT THERE - PLEASE."
The above can be found at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm#rei
A link to the GOOGLE archive is at the above page, and one can thus read the entire
post.
> Alt.out-of-body should not
> pander to people who have the agenda of destroying its very existance by
> proving the Superiority of Science.
There is nothing wrong with science. It's scientism, or
materialist fundamentalism that is the problem. There is
real scientific study of the paranormal...
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Exactly. Read the alt.paranormal FAQ. From that, people can get some
ideas for how you may like AOOB to be.
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
Exactly, ALT.OUT-OF-BODY SHOULD NOT PANDER TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE AGENDA OF
DESTROYING ITS VERY EXISTENCE...
I might add, also, that people reading alt.paranormal should POST THERE, and NOT BE
AFRAID. There are far too posters who advocate the existence of the paranormal.
Most posters in that newsgroup are ANTI-PARANORMAL fanatics.
HOW TO RECLAIM THE NEWSGROUPS...
http://www.psicounsel.com/howtore.html
> I am sure that there are people like me who would like to post about their
> OBEs but who are afraid of being ridiculed by some of the more vocal
> advocates of Science.
Change that "science" to scientism, and I agree. There are those afraid of being
ridiculed, and that means people are allowing the fanatics to rule these newsgroups.
It's a shame, really.> What happened to the FAQ that was supposed to be addressing this issue?
>
> Argye
You people who have been posting a long time to AOOB will develop your own FAQ. I'm
a relative newcomer here. However, I hope you find some good ideas from the
alt.paranormal FAQ. Some of the ideas in the AP FAQ came from the alt.astrology FAQ.
Please crosspost to alt.paranormal as OOB/NDE are paranormal phenomena, and we need
some discussion going on so we may attract people of similar opinion.
=======================================================
Message-ID: <3E249E76.E751BA3E@flagship1.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:34:14 -0500
From: Flagship1 of the Paranormal <paranormal@flagship1.com>
House Widdershins [click here for GOOGLE archived posts from this
person. Click here for SEARCH ENGINE of Psicounsel, and look
for other writing addressed to this person. Use "Widdershins"
to automatically find it.] wrote:
<snip>
> I will, in my general beneficence, consistent with the way I
> treat small children, the mentally retarded, and the obviously
> insane, offer you the opportunity to apologize, and promise
> never to do it again. Otherwise, it will be my pleasure to drive you
> from Usenet again, and while I'm in the process, making your
> Usenet life as painful as I possibly can.
<snip>
I am only 23 years old and now I am getting open threats from somebody
who is in their late adulthood. This is just too bad. I have interpreted
your hints and language use such as with the words "painful as possible"
to mean the possibility that your intention is to have people gang up
on me and beat me up or god knows what. As the defenseless young man that
I have no choice but to honor your wishes and leave usenet. When I get
older, I may return but its doubtful. You have won. You defeated a young
23 year old. I hope this makes you and your friends happy.
<snip>
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
"Sometimes trolls take writings out of context or write pure lies
about people just to get them baited into flame-wars. You do not
have to address each and every lie that they make. Don't feed them!"
Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
Public E-Mail --------> paranormal@flagship1.com
Forgery Information --> http://www.flagship1.com/forgery.txt
=======================================================
alt.fan.art-bell (afa-b) is a newsgroup that was completely taken over, and the actual fans of paranormal talk-show host Art Bell were forced out of the newsgroup, censored, from discussing the paranormal as actual, probable, or even possible. It became a newsgroup dominated by pseudo-skeptic fanatics (PSF). See this page for further information and documented proof.
====================================================
November 5, 1996
SAM KAYANI sann0418@sable.ok.ac.uk
I long for a newsgroup where REAL scientists and investigators would debate in a selfless truthsearching fashion on such matters. Alas, this newsgroup is infested with proud flaming [USENET SLANG to "flame": insult others] narrowminded skeptics.
====================================================
November 9, 1996
rewat@ix.netcom.com (Starla Kay Immak) writes:
You are so right. It seems like anytime you get on a newsgroup or ufo chat line there is someone there making fun of you.
My question is, if they don't believe it, why not get off the chat line or the news group?
====================================================
From: Brian Zeiler bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu
now: bdzeiler@primenet.com
Subject: Re: BELIEVER IN PARANORMAL COMPARES SKEPTICS TO MURDERERS
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 17:10:07 -0700
Many ideas and people in the world annoy me to no end -- radical liberals, fundamentalist religious zealots, the Chicago Bulls, and country music. But see, I don't post violent vitriole in those newsgroups. Only a deranged fanatic would go to a group dedicated to discussion of a certain topic and flood it with messages that fanatically condemn the topic and seek to convert the other people against the topic.
/snip\
-- Brian Zeiler
=========================================================
Subject: Re: Skeptics continue with unproven claims.
From: John Fitzsimons johnf@melbpc.org.au
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 03:37:55 GMT
I constantly see skeptics here [in the alt.paranormal newsgroup] NOT check out the truth of issues. They simply call people liars, fools and dismiss any evidence that conflicts with their preconceived opinions.
=====================================================
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Must we pick on people? (was: John Fitzsimons...)
From: Charles Gregory ab801@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Date: 10 Nov 1996 03:42:59 GMT
I used to frequent this place quite a bit, but I got tired of the usual "skeptics" turning up with no other purpose than to proudly parade the lack of rigorous scientific evidence for psychic abilties and tell everyone with an odd experience how "deluded" they were.
John participates in this newsgroup much as I do, to discuss possibilities.
If someone needs spiritual/psychic advice, we share what we have experienced in the hopes that it gives insight to someone else's problems. This doesn't require "proof." If someone is helped, if their life goes better, then regardless of the "real" mechanism at work, the intent has been followed by a success. And the discussions are among those who have experienced a phenomenon. Why should those who have not, demand we prove it to them?
===================================================
FOR GOOGLE ARCHIVE of this post, click here.
Steve Reiser
Subject:: *WHY I STARTED ALT.PARANORMAL 6 YRS. AGO*
From: E-Mail Link (Steven Reiser) WEB SITE OF STEVEN REISER
Date:1996/04/27
Hi,
I started this newsgroup in 1990 in an effort to create a forum in which people could simply share their experiences and what they speculated or believed about them without being hounded by skeptics to prove anything.
The purpose of this newsgroup is to share paranormal experiences.
If you want to debate proof then take it to sci.skeptic and other skeptic newsgroups and LEAVE IT THERE - PLEASE.
I quit reading this newsgroup years ago because many skeptics have no respect for a division of interests. My perception is they are no different than Bible thumpers beating your door down to convince you to join their religion. It can be very annoying to a group that would like to discuss the paranormal openly without some skeptic screaming "prove it" or constantly deriding people for their belief in even the possibility of paranormal experience.
======================================================================
From: Edmond Wollmann wollmann@mail.sdsu.edu
Subject: Re: Challenge to Paul (and other cynics)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:22:36 -0800
[Dan Kettler comment: This post was heavily revised by me. To see the post in brackets, click here.]
If you were behaving sensibly, you would be posting in a group that you were for instead of against.
Proponents of astrology are past trying to prove our ideas.
So-called "skeptics" try to prove theirs, so that perhaps they can believe them themselves.
Rational people, on the other hand, are more interested in advancing their interests with those of like minds because they know its just a matter of preference, and one doesn't have anymore "power" than the other to know "the" truth.
This is because you cynics are "safety and security" types in Maslow's hierarchy of needs ** and are trying to get to esteem and acceptance.
Because you approach it from the negative point of view rather than the positive, you try to hack away at the esteem of others because you are jealous. You have difficulty recognizing your own sense of powerlessness, therefore.
Now, if you were to follow what inspired or excited you, and became an expert in that area, you could then participate in that group's endeavors, and enhance your sense of worth and esteem.
You will have to honestly look at yourself and your motives. The ego is intent on proving itself, so anything not reinforcing to this negative ego is a threat.
Positive ego sees everything must be there for a reason.
Of course if you reject this explanation
there is always the analogous option:
If I hate politics, watch it on TV, criticize it, and go to political rallies to convince people how bad politics is.]
[Dan Kettler comment: If someone listen's to Art Bell repeatedly, then goes to his designated newsgroup, repeatedly, to convince people how bad Art Bell is, would it not be logical to assume that person is...]
Would it not be logical to assume that:
A) I'm an idiot.
B) I'm wasting my life in pursuits I do not prefer.
C) I am too stupid too realize it will have no effect on whether other people like politics or not.
D) I have absolutely no understanding of myself -- simple psychology,
E) This is my reaction formation or projection.
My lesson is obviously to "cast not your pearls to swine, lest they turn and rend you and trample them under their feet." So, I must retreat from this. Perhaps someone else will find it useful.
"If a man likes the whip and you whip him to try to punish him, you're just making a fool out of yourself." Charles Manson
If you don't get this I really feel sorry for you all.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting
Artworks
Propaganda on the Net
** SEE: "self actualization" post. CLICK HERE
Subject: Re: "SKEPTICS" INFESTING, NARROW MINDED
Date: 9 Nov 1996 22:15:44 GMT
Sender: tomeleven@aol.com
SUBJECT: OBSCENITY - of a paranormal nature
I've been subscribing to this group for almost 2 years. I have noted that "skeptics""invade" the group in "waves." Each time we eventually shut them up and have a month or two of "peace." A NEW crop of "skeptics" then descends upon us and the cycle continues.
It is partially our fault that these waves continue. Some of us who are serious about the study of Paranormal phenomina actually are foolish enough to argue with these name calling, ignorant morons. This only encourages more silly arguments.
Remember -- "It is useless to reason a person out of a position that he was never reasoned into in the first place." MOST "Skepticism" is emotionally based. It is derived from a "denyal" form of a psychological defense that the person uses, to handle his fears of the implications of /snip\ a particular phenomenon. These fears, ironically, are usually based upon ignorance and misunderstanding of what the phenomenon in question actually /snip\ is.
tomeleven@aol.com Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: Incubus wspirit@hotmail.com
Subject: This newsgroup
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:43:35 +0000
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that a newsgroup about paranormal discussion is exactly for that. Discussions regarding whether or not there are such events as paranormal phenomena, psychic powers, discarnates, etc seem more suited to sci.skeptic.
But it's not as if discussion is the word for it. When I look at the postings in this newgroup, the flamewars, the bait, the word"invasion" springs to mind.
I apologize if I am being unfair here, but at times it seems as though the whole thing was engineered. Too many coincidences. Too many attacks.
I remember when I first came across the group, it was a useful source of information where people weren't reluctant to share their thoughts and opinions and ask questions without fear of being jumped upon. These days people rarely bother - and who can blame them?
I thought it would die down - it always does, sooner or later. But it didn't. There are too many enjoying the stupid wars which achieve nothing. Have these people really got nothing better to do?
It's a shame really.
List of alt.paranormal "overseers"
This part of the page is referenced from the alt.paranormal FAQ and answers URL.
As of November 13, 1999 most of the following were part of a group who met together in private discussion and were of the Newsgroup alt.paranormal. They adequately express that the paranormal exists, or probably does, and have sufficient knowledge of how it does or would exist. They have significantly contributed. They were overseers, and had joint authority.
The group member list has changed in the past. This list could change in the future, without my knowledge.
I, Dan Kettler, officially withdrew from the discussion group, (not from the position of "overseer") though I've been welcomed back to discussions should I decide to rejoin in the future. The main reason I decided to withdraw, is that the others seem to have the knowledge, experience, and awareness to carry on our mutual goal of bringing alt.paranormal to the status of a peaceful and on-topic newsgroup to read about and discuss the paranormal.
The status, at the time a person reads this may change. This list is not necessarily current at the time of reading.
Earl Gordon Curley--no longer in physcial existence-- webdesignca@hotmail.com click here for web site
John McGowan John.Mcgowan@ghostrdr.wierius.com click here for web site
Tom Ray Tomeleven@aol.com click here for web site
Wizard wizard@primenet.com
Bruce Kettler WEBSITE@psicounsel.com click here for web site -- and send mail via the site
Steve Reiser avatar.wizard@home.com founder of alt.paranormal click here for web site
Ron Bobo ronnyb@stlnet.com
Lucianarchy luci@narchy.fsnet click here for web site
Alexander Aldarow aldarow@zahav.net.il click here for web site
Edmond H. Wollmann EHW@astroconsulting.com click here for web site
Flagship1 of the Paranormal paranormal@flagship1.com click here for web site
Dave Lindhauer camille@bluegrass.net
This may develop into others having the same degree of authority, without my necessarily listing the names here, but it should be with the consensus of opinion of the above persons, or varying list as agreed upon by the above, and I may not be informed of every step that is taken.
The term "SKEP-TI-CULT" was originated by myself, Dan Kettler. The Usenet archives show that. The archives can be accessed and by entering the proper word, author, and time period, it can be determined when, and by whom, a certain term was first used.
A group of people who call themselves "skeptics" have been using the term, and identifying themselves as such, with my permission. However, they cannot legally or honestly make a claim as the originators of the term.
