Hidden Truth

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Hidden Truth / Hidden Truth.iso / data / newspostings / 1401-1500 / 1482 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-19 | 24.6 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: dkettler@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo Subject: The *SKEP-TI-CULT" revisited (3 of 3) Date: 19 Jun 1996 09:01:00 GMT Organization: TIFPC - The Internet Fax Psychic Connection Lines: 613 Message-ID: <4q8fkc$j4b@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: den-co14-05.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 19 2:01:00 AM PDT 1996 X-Newsreader: OUI 1.3.0 BEGIN PART 3 of 3 PARTS: See copyright provisions at the beginning of part 1 *WHAT IS A FANATIC*? My dictionary says: "excessive and unreasonable zeal" Of course, everyone is zealous in some ways. However, here's what I mean by "excessive" and "unreasonable": DISSENTING VIEWS vs FANATICISM: A dissenting view is one that is about the *writing,* the *content,* so not everyone who has a difference of opinion is fanatical. If one shows belief that it is the option of those with certain views to either prove their truth or not, that's just dissent. If one shows belief that those with certain views *must* prove their point or be labeled "frauds," "liars," "hypocrites," and "deluded," that's fanaticism. It's quite similar to a Christian Fundamentalist declaring that those with occult views are demon possessed. If a person continually repeats the doctrine that people are *required* to prove their beliefs, a doctrine that runs counter to society and law, that's fanaticism. It's mixing one's personal belief in required proof with the general requirements of society. Dissenting views may be expressed occasionally in a newsgroup of people with opposing views. As one example, there's occasional posting to SCI.SKEPTIC of those who's ideas are PRO-PARANORMAL. That is, the answering of individual postings placed on SCI- SKEPTIC. When a person spends most of their time on USENET answering the postings of PRO-PARANORMAL people, to show how wrong they think the ideas are, that's fanaticism. To use an analogy of real-life people, not those on USENET, suppose one person is a Liberal, and another is a Conservative. Both have meeting places One believes the US government will work better one way, and the other has different ideas. Now, of course, debate is essential to work out differences, and perhaps bring one side to lean toward the other's views somewhat, in Congress or the Senate. Both sides meet in the same place. However, suppose there are the ideological group's meeting places, outside the US government, not the actual governmental body. One is a conservative group, fans of Rush Limbaugh, and the other are fans of Bill Clinton. Now, a person of one group may go *visit* the other, in a friendly way, and debate somewhat about issues and ideology. If the person comes around too often, don't you think those of the opposing side will get tired of it? If someone from an opposing side comes around too often against the will of those who are in their own designated meeting place, don't you think those forcing the issue are somewhat "fanatical"? If the habit of a group is to refer constantly to the *person* writing certain views, how dishonest they supposedly are, how lacking in logic, or otherwise derogatory remarks, rather than the *content* of the writing, that's fanaticism. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++ Steve Reiser, (sir@srv.net) the founder of alt.paranormal, wrote that the problem of too many "skeptics" caused him to not contribute to the newsgroup he'd founded. Steve stopped contributing long before I ever posted to USENET. (Reader, again, I apologize for so may personal issues, as in the above paragraph. I have to write these things, at least in this revision) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ Every PRO-PARANORMAL person, as far as I can tell so far, who has expressed a view about postings on alt.paranormal from "skeptics" wants them to stop their excessive posting. There were postings placed revealing that preference. A "WE THE UNDERSIGNED" was placed across newsgroups, and in the signatures that followed, people announced, in effect, that they *do not* want to be deluged by postings of opposing views. They feel like their newsgroups are deluged by postings from "skeptics." I, and I assume most others, are not afraid of the "truth." No one is hiding from the "other side of the story." There are *real* (not as imagined by the "skeptics") reasons. People who pay for on-line time, looking to exchange PRO-PARANORMAL views, cannot afford to spend their time and money wading through the deluge of writings from "skeptics." Those with unlimited time at a flat fee don't want to waste even just their time. In effect, those who have an INTEREST in THE PARANORMAL, are being CENSORED by so called "SKEPTICS." If people are discouraged from reading any newsgroup such as alt.astrology, alt.pagan.magick, or alt.paranet.ufo because of the activities of "SKEPTICS," and the fact has been announced TO THE SKEPTICS, and the PRO-PARANORMAL are leaving the newsgroup, including the founder, Steve Reiser (and he has not posted in quite some time) (sir@srv.net) THEN, IN EFFECT, PRO-PARANORMAL people have been CENSORED BY SO-CALLED "SKEPTICS." And, the really ridiculous part of this is that they accuse some of us, Earl Gordon Curley and myself, of attempted censorship. The "skeptics" response, in effect, is *go to hell.* It's something like, *Get a moderated newsgroup, and then you can go hide your head in the sand and not have to be exposed to science and logic.* That's similar to the person following you down the street, asking you to listen, while you say repeatedly, "get away from me." The so-called "skeptics" really seem to think those who read and write to alt.paranormal and similar newsgroups are afraid of science and logic. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ Steve Reiser, (sir@srv.net) the founder of alt.paranormal wrote that he likened these "skeptics" to "bible thumpers" about to break down a door to try to convert a person. Certainly occasional posting in alt.paranormal and similar newsgroups would be acceptable, as long as the poster takes note of how many such opposing view postings already appear. I notice occasional postings in SCI.SKEPTIC from those who are PRO- PARANORMAL. A posting in alt.paranormal announcing a debate in SCI.SKEPTIC about a particular subject would be good, but not excessively often. If I walk down the street and someone says, "I want to debate..." and I say, "No, I must be going." And the person follows me, and says, "but, this is important, you just cannot believe that, and you have to prove it's right." I will say, quite appropriately, "Look, I don't have to prove anything. Get away." What makes it "fanatical?" Look at how many subjects are covered by them in alt.paranormal. Look at how often they post. Look at the compulsion to cross-post, like *everyone* must see just how right they are. Remember, it's "skeptics" posting to alt.paranormal. That cannot be compared to how many subjects I, a PRO.PARANORMAL, person post in the newsgroups that I can identify with. If I post in alt.paranormal and alt.paranet.paranormal, as one example, that's not the cross-posting I'm referring to. Yes, I've cross-posted to sci.skeptic, but I don't make a habit of it. It's "fanatical" to ignore the desire of people to be left alone, to not have to read so many cries for "proof," and "evidence," whether written with those exact words or not. These requests of PRO-PARANORMAL people, for "skeptics" to post announcements of debate which will occur in other newsgroups, and to cut down the number of postings of opposing views, have been acknowledged by the fanatics, so I know they were read. I also see them as "fanatics" because of the old fundamentalist, "SAVE THEM" mentality. They think those into the paranormal are poor deluded fools. Somehow, to this mentality, the PRO-PARANORMAL need to be "SAVED." This is comparible to a fundamentalist trying to save people from "demons." On May 25, 1996, Brian Zeiler, bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu, posted the following: 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. Every group has a fanatic like that, even the Led Zeppelin group. The Simpsons group has kooks that bash the Simpsons. I don't even think you are aware of just how totally insane and fanatical you really look, and really are, for harassing people who want to discuss paranormal topics. I think the notion of reincarnation is totally absurd and a waste of time, but you won't see me in alt.paranormal bashing those who believe in it and seeking to reform them. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to do this, but rather I'm saying that the fact that you do this is consistent with the profile and behavior of a genuinely obsessed fanatic. Find another hobby that's more stable. ****************************************** THIS SO-CALLED "SKEPTICISM" (THE "SKEP-TI- CULT") MENTALITY IS DELUSIONAL. ****************************************** On June 17, 1996, in reply to my posting (6/16/96) of the subject: (17 Jun 1996 20:38:18 GMT) ANNOUNCEMENT TO ALL "SKEPTICS" Date: 17 Jun 1996 20:38:18 GMT NOTE: The meaning of the word "PRO" here is that of PRO vs ANTI. gothic@netaxs.com (Matt Kriebel) quoted me, Bruce Daniel Kettler (dkettler@ix.netcom.com) wrote: Then again, consistently, a large number of the postings from "skeptics" are from a variety of people, and these postings take up a lot of space. Matt wrote; What is your definition of a skeptic? In spite of your claims to the contrary, you have basicly defined a skeptic as anyone, believer, pro, or not who finds your comments to be too outlandish. My reply: Gosh, Matt, you observed that? Now, that has to be more of the "SKEP-TI-CULT" delusion. You observed a case of mistaken identity, but never bothered to look into it carefully. Readers may examine the USENET archives for postings around the date of this referenced posting. I'm not going into it in detail, as it would bore the reader. As for my definition of a "skeptic," well I've had this document, the one you're reading, out for quite some time with the definition, and you've written postings quoting from this writing. It doesn't say what you say my definition is. Your accounts of my writing in postings doesn't either. Matt quotes me here: I attribute the above [large number of "skeptic" postings] to being ZEALOUS, not to numbers. There are many, many PRO'S out there who just don't want to be bothered with proving things in other newsgroups, other than the one's they frequent with like-minded people in them. Matt states: And you have decided that you are the one to speak for all of them? Sorry, Bruce, you still don't understand that you do not speak for USENET. My answer here: Well, the fact that people who are PRO'S, generally, don't want to prove anything to the SKEP-TI-CULT, is quite evident by looking at postings. There are exceptions, of course. However, in my posting, I asked PRO people to post here if they felt that statement was wrong. As for the number of pro-paranormal people, vs so-called "skeptics," the general population, in or out of the INTERNET, there are many, many more PRO'S than so-called "skeptics." ON the INTERNET, one may look through the number of pro-skeptic newsgroups, and the number of people posting to them. Then, one may look at the pro-paranormal, MAGICK, UFO, ASTROLOGY, etc. and compare that. The delusional idea that I somehow am trying to say I speak for USENET, is ridiculous. Matt quotes me here: BRIEFLY, what my last posting, placed today, stated was, that there are 2 opposing forces: 1. PRO PARANORMAL, UFO, ASTROLOGY MAGICK, etc. people discuss issues of same on USENET. Mostly, they do not want discussion with "skeptics." Matt answers: Kettler speaks for all, all hail Kettler! He shall drown your ISP in email for the heresy of skepticism. My reply here: More delusional behavior, Matt. In my introductory remarks, I pointed out that the skeptics never did get it, that most people do not want discussion with so-called "skeptics." It seems to be a SKEP-TI-CULT mentality delusion, and you evidently also don't get it. You're another of those who think that PRO people, generally, just love to exchange ideas with so-called "skeptics." The other delusion, apparently, is that I drown ISP'S, (INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS) in email for what I, supposedly, consider the "heresy" of skepticism. Either that, or your writing might indicate I threaten to do this act because of opposing views that I do not agree with. You wrote the second one, and gave some really poor "guilt by association" logic for it within days of this posting I'm replying to. It went something like this: Bruce Daniel Kettler quotes Earl Gordon Curley. Earl Gordon Curley has done thus and so. Therefore Bruce Daniel Kettler does the same as Earl Gordon Curley. Gosh, the SKEP-TI-CULT mentality is, supposedly, so *LOGICAL* also. The "all hail Kettler!" bit seems to point to some supposed *dictatorial* attitude of mine. Gosh, Matt, you're full of delusion this time, again. Well, so much for the *delusion* of the SKEP-TI-CULT. You not only give an example of the delusion of the SKEP-TI-CULT, but you show how right Del is about how people of your mentality "attack...the person's overall character," as shown below. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++ As noted by Del in his writing, the "skeptics" "lie" and "..attack... the persons overall character in a lame attempt to make them smaller than the skeptics." I've been at the receiving end, in large part, I believe, because of the repeat of this writing to various newsgroups. Those copying the writing to other newsgroups, however, please keep it up. We all need to have these people completely exposed, so everyone knows who and what they are right away. *************************** TO THE SO-CALLED SKEPTICS: *************************** By the way, I try not to use the examples from individuals of the SKEP-TI-CULT, who show outragious behavior in their postings. When they flame me consistently, however, they can be sure of being published. I've asked the outragious writing of certain people to stop, and when it did, I deleted their names from newer revisions of this writing. If you want to disagree with my *WRITING*, fine. I've even made modifications in this text due to the suggestions of so-called "skeptics." However, keep the personal attacks out of your writing. In this revision, only MATT KRIEBEL is included as an example of the outragious SKEP-TI-CULT mentality, as he was the last remaining FLAMER, after the others had stopped. ******************************************************** ****** ******************************************************** ****** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ Other noted behavior: Extreme suspicion -- a mistake is called a lie, as one example Distorted view, and representation of, what is quoted -- skeptic writes: "you said ...." when a person really said or meant something else. Quotes out of context Conflict -- They generate a great deal of personal conflict, 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. Condescending attitude Ridicule -- Rather than just addressing the issue they ridicule those who have a belief. ________________________________________________________ ___________ Here's an example, in Mark's reply, of the perception of so many that attempting to have a rational dialogue with these fanatics is fruitless: Subject: Re: ARE "PARANORMAL" GROUPS BECOMING "ANTI-PARANORMAL?" From: Mark Hammons <m-hamm@vm1.spcs.umn.edu> To: klint@ultranet.com (Clinton H. Cooper) Date: May. 12, 1996 Clinton H. Cooper wrote: (among other things) If you wish to elevate your beliefs to fact. . . PROVE them! argue, provide sources, evidence, intelligence, concede fault and point out misconception. Treat your own beliefs with respect, do not simply say "cause I say it is, OK?" say why! Mark's reply: The assumption is that the minds of these people are OPEN to such convincing. Experience has shown me time and again that this precondition for discourse is lacking. First, they would have to assume that I present my perceptual information and experience with a basic and commonly held respect for the truth, whatever that turns out to be. Instead, the a priori assumption is usually that I am lying, confused, or misinformed. Hardly the basis for a "respectful" conversation, heh? It takes two to psi-tango, and I've gotten used to dancing without partners. I do not NEED the approval of these people to have positive self-respect and positive self-esteem toward my own personal experience, just because they have chosen to concentrate their realm of awareness into a narrower field of actions. The accusation inevitably boils down to the fact that my experience contains something their abstract structure does not allow, ergo I am the wacko. Bugger the lot of them. I get along just fine without their condescension and deaf-eared criticism. For the most part, I agree with your ideal world suggestion, but most of us with the "gift" know the reality is drastically different. Fortunately, there are getting to be so many of us that we do not need the imprimatur of the "scientific" psi-blind, and can get along quite well without submitting to their humiliation and hazing; all of which arises, of course, from their own insecurity and ignorance just as we were once so imprisoned as a perceptual minority. What goes around comes around, and they are now getting to the latter part. Blessings on their struggle, but no one can make the connection within themselves--which is where we are talking about--except, guess who? Mark ________________________________________________________ ___ I'm not going to write all the details of each and every noted behavior and characteristic, at least not in this revision. I have 1 megabyte stored on a diskette, of nothing but exchanges between skeptics and PRO-PARANORMAL in just the past few months. Most of it is about personal issues, ridicule, etc., not actual debate about issues such as whether such a thing as a psychic exists. Then I have additional postings that go back further, to December 1995, and I'm not sure of the total number of bytes. I also have "skeptic" exchanges from on-line services, on diskette, from 1991 and 1992. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++ A NOTE ABOUT MOTIVATION: People who post to alt.paranormal and similar newsgroups, with opposing views, do so for many reasons, some mixed. Often enough, one of their reasons is for excitement. Without a response, they lose interest and go on to get responses from another group. If they remember their last visit to your newsgroup yielded nothing, they are unlikely to come back. Note how they "bait." It's to make sure they get a response. It's like a tug at your ego, and it says, "answer me." Remember, they need attention. Perhaps the only attention they received as children was negative. They had to annoy their parents to get acknowledgement. Many do this over a period of years, and thus are experts who know how to get responses. Don't give it to them, and they will go away eventually. Alan Berg was a talk show host in Denver. His ratings were high because he was extremely obnoxious -- so much so he was shot and killed by Neo-Nazis. People loved to dislike him. It was an extremely negative thing, but he thrived financially on it. Other people thrive psychologically on that kind of attention. When you encounter a person who, with sincerity, is seeking truth, be it a "skeptic" or anyone, have compassion. Communicate with *them* while continuing to maintain your distance from those who are just playing games with you. Remember, those who are sincere will write things in e-mail that they would not in public postings. If you find that you just cannot contain yourself, and just must place a response posting to a "skeptic," I don't recommend this as a preference, but at least it will save you time and energy. Have these, and others you make up, on your hard disk. Post *them* in response to the "skeptics": REFERENCE: http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc then select SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA If your mind is already made up, I'd rather not discuss this with you. If you actually have an open mind, then we can. Here's another: Why, oh why, do you always think you *must* *prove your truth*? What goes on, actually, so deep inside your soul? Here's another: I wasn't discussing the subject with you, so why do you carry on with the absurd idea that somehow, I *MUST* prove it to you. Use this one too: Let's see, an ANTI in a PRO newsgroup? Are you here for discovery? Are you really interested in what I have to say, or do you just want to convert all of us? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: To the so-called "skeptics," who have given me so much material to write about, that it's now becoming book length. With each royalty check, I will give my thanks to you all. To those interested in so-called "paranormal" (It's really normal.) phenomena, your continued discussions in newsgroups has provided much valuable insight and information. MAY THIS BE: ....successful, with widespread dissemination of the information through both electronic and printed media, so people will gain insight to effectively deal with people of the "skeptic" mentality without so much trial and error ....inspiring, eye opening, and an experience of freedom from the cage that minds, of the so-called "skeptic," "true believer" mentality, are kept in THE TRUE BELIEVER by Eric Hoffer, published 1951, Harper and Row. Bruce Daniel Kettler dkettler@ix.netcom.com Copyright 1996 ----- Bruce Daniel Kettler ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++ END PART 3 of 3 PARTS -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' ' ' \\\\ --- Reality --- //// ' ' \\\\ //// ' ' \\\\ What a Concept! //// ' ' ' ' (Robin Williams) ' ' ' ' http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc ' ' ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~