What is a Spinic? (Spin Doctoring Propagandic Cynic)
Edmond Wollmann
skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm or area of
interest without investigation, knowledge, or study of any sort. This is
bigotry, not skepticism. Propaganda is then "spun" against the
paradigm/person and they are religiously and zealously defamed
(evidenced by the multitude of defamation sites under my name-none of
which evidence any truth whatever). The individual or groups then hold
dogmatically onto their fallacious refutation despite all discrediting,
academic refutation, or current/past acceptance by a large majority of
said paradigm by the populace. This is called religion.
Spinic's actions betray their stated goals of "skepticism" by the
malicious defamation they perpetrate. Their continued hounding and
defamation of those they are bigoted against continues unabated despite
evidence of the validity and value of the paradigms they seek to
denigrate, from their bigotry not logic. Their psychological denial of
facts, refutations, and evidenced constructiveness of the paradigms they
seek to denigrate only evidences their own insecurity and intellectual
deficiency. Ignored are the rights, dignity, choice or desire for
preference of the individuals/groups they seek to destroy through this
propagandic spin and defamation.
The indices listed below are valid referenced academic areas of accepted
knowledge that refutes and describes the fallacious and defective
arguments of the typical spinic's attempts to "color" their defamation
as "argument" or disagreement.
CYNIC=From the Greek kynikos, -doglike, churlish. Philos. one of a sect
of ancient Greek philosophers who taught that pleasure is an evil if
sought for its own sake, and made an ostentatious show of contempt for
riches and enjoyment.; sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the
goodness of human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief
by sneers and sarcasm-cynicism=the practice of a cynic; a morose
contempt of the pleasures and arts in life. Lexicon/Webster
Ig no rant=Deficient of knowledge of either general information or a
specific field; uninformed; untaught; unenlightened-ignorance, the state
of being ignorant, or of lacking knowledge; the condition of not being
cognizant or aware of. Lexicon/Webster..between ignoramus and ignore.
Bigot=a person intolerant of creeds, opinions etc. other than his own.
(Webster College Dict.)
Case # 3,539,081
Conclusion-cynical and unable to acknowledge larger frameworks within
which fragmented knowledge fits.
Psych-Inferiority, persistent feeling that one does not measure up to
societal standards and personal fictional standards. Ego lock on
physicality and the belief that only psychic material accessible to
egoistic functions is "real."
Habitual responses. Inability for holistic cognitions.
Philo-The desire to participate in emotivism and the inability to remove
such judgments. Begging the question vicious and cyclic argumentation
which denies purposeful existence other than to prove pointlessness.
Fear that existence is pointless and construct development to reinforce
this conclusion. Pleasure derived from invalidating arguments that
inspire and improve the human condition.
Inability to understand coherence theory of truth. Inability to
understand the pragmatic theory of truth.
Frequently indulges in the logical defect fallacies of;
"Fallacy of suppressed evidence"The requirement of a true premises
includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece
of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very
different conclusion.
"Red Herring" fallacy="The red herring fallacy is committed when the
arguer diverts the attention of the reader by changing the subject to
some totally different issue.
"Missing the point" another fallacy of relevance-The conclusion of the
argument is irrelevant to the premises. "Missing the point illustrates a
special form of irrelevance. This fallacy occurs when the premises of an
argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different
conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn.
"Begging the question" occurs when an arguer uses some form of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise. If the reader or the listener is deceived into thinking
that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound,
when in fact, it may not be.
"Appeal to the People" (Argumentum ad Populum)
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recog-
nized, and accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these
desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. Two
approaches are involved, one of them direct, the other indirect.
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of
people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win
acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob
mentality. (the usenet group alt.usenet.kooks is used solely for this
defect).
Their favorite and highly relied upon one is called "Argument Against
the Person" (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
to commit an argument against the person.
"Bandwagon Argument" A variety of the "Appeal to the people" fallacy
that occurs when the arguer plays on the reader's or listener's need to
feel a part of the group (or to down another group). In the indirect
approach the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a
whole but to one or more individuals separately, focusing upon some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach
includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to
vanity, and the appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the
advertising industry. Here is an example of the bandwagon argument;
"Of course you will want to buy Zest toothpaste. Why, 90% of America
brushes with Zest."
Or
"Of course you will want to demean and defame Edmond Wollmann. Why, 90%
of alt.usenet kooks (not even 1% of usenet) voted him a kook."
Because spinics will try to discredit THESE accepted delineations, it
should be noted these definitions are taken from an academic work used
in colleges and Universities, Logic, 4th Edition Hurley, University of
San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
Sci-Participates in repeated inductive generalizations. Materialism
focused and rigid. Believes that because information not cognizable by
the ego self, it must not exist, delusional and inability for rigorous
investigation prior to conclusions. Projects that "others" are guilty of
this.
Conclusion-Perspective alteration necessary. Insists on misery and
negativity in order to resist the slightest appearance of a
relinquishment of control-which inadvertently reinforces inferiority
feelings. Denial. No known remediation at this point. Likelihood of
future crisis in perspective great.
Mature individuals can agree to disagree and recognize that often
disagreements simply boil down to preferences. There is no one truth,
except that the truth is the composition of all truths.
Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore respectfully beg
to differ with spinics and offer sincere success in their future search
for truths (should they decide to act on their preferences and stop
trying to defeat others preferences).
There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the composition of all
truths. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-it may be a
difference in root assumptions.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's view, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application
of scientific principles, in Kuhn's view, is the concept of a paradigm,
a conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
education. Anomalies are disregarded because they do not articulate the
paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
Or as Einstein said "It is the theory that determines what we observe."
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
We don't live by logic and facts we live by trust-if you disagree with
this premise, provide the factual basis and logical reason and/or
purposes for living. If you can't produce any I suggest you stop living
because there is no evidence or "facts" available to justify and
quantify doing it anymore.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and sarcasm.
Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
possibility.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi", "The Winter Walk at Noon"
Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs" (Tuchman,
1984, p. 7).
"On Pseudo-Skepticism" -- Marcello Truzzi
One of CSICOP's founders exposes his former compeers.
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/pseudo.html
"True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality" --
Rich
Kammann
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/kammann.html
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview" -- George Hansen
Sociological study of the organization; why they instituted their policy
*against* conducting scientific investigations.
ftp://ftp.rutgers.edu/pub/ufo/csicop-and-skeptic
Part 2:
ftp://ftp.rutgers.edu/pub/ufo/csicop-and-skeptic.2
"Myths of Skepticism" -- Michael Sofka
Common misconceptions skeptics have.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html
"The Astronomer Who Abolished Gravity" -- Robert Anton Wilson
In Carl Sagan's debunking of Dr. Velikovsky, he omitted one minor factor
from his calculations: gravity.
http://www.tcp.com/~prime8/raw/trigger3.html
"Extraordinary Claim? Move the Goal Posts!" -- Patrick Huyghe
How science works, or doesn't.
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/goal.html
"CSICOP Scare!" -- Dennis Stacy
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/csicop.html
"Robert A. Baker's Unattributed Copying" -- Lippard
Copyright violations and plagiarism by a prominent skeptic.
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/Bakerreport.txt
"A New Case of Scientific Serendipity?" -- "Diogenes, Jr." (Marcello
Truzzi) Satire on Robert Baker's plagiarism.
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/baker-diogenes.html
"Response to Martin Gardner's Attack on Reich and Orgone Research in the
_Skeptical Inquirer_" -- James DeMeo
http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/gardner.htm
"Zen and the Art of Debunkery" -- Daniel Drasin
Satire of typical skeptical manoeuvers.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html
"Sceptic's Can't Play Ball" -- Jenny Randles
Various misdeeds of the local skeptics.
http://www.citadel.co.uk/citadel/eclipse/futura/bufora/times/randles/scept
ic.htm
"Debunkeritis -- A Partial List" -- Jerome Clark
Satire.
http://www.ufobbs.com/txt4/3256.ufo
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Carl R. Osterwald
Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
> skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm FLUSH
Your personal battles with windmills are off-topic in afa-b.
-=-=-=-=-
Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, and Gubmint Disinformation Agent
Peter J Ross
> In article <35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com>, Edmond
> Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
>> skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm FLUSH
>
> Your personal battles with windmills are off-topic in afa-b.
I'm so used to Eddy's posts being complete nonsense that it took me a
moment to realise that he didn't use the phrase "a paradigm flush".
Come to think of it, it probably makes more sense than whatever he
really wrote.
--
PJR :-)
(Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
Irony Alert
news:35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com...
Do you really expect people to read such a lengthy diatribe? All anyone has
to do is read your subject line to see that it is essentially just a
whinefest.
--
The afa-b Irony Alert
Skepticultist 578-44631-005
Serving alt.fan.art-bell since 2003
Tyrannical Kookologist of the New World Order
Bookman
Lame name you invented. Managed to violate the
free speech rights of any of your detractors yet, Edmo?
I'm sure you'll keep tryin', but in the meantime, try harder
with the neologisms, OK? "Spinic" is horribly lame.
Try this one on for size: "K00kl00p"(v.) - When a Usenet
nutkase who keeps repeating the same k00ky klames
over and over without adding any new kontent.
Or maybe "Internut" (n.) - A nut on the Internet
(See also "Usenut")
"E-jerk-you-lation"(adj.) - When an Internut declares
victory for for no apparent reason.
Now, we can wait and see if any of these catch on.
If they don't they were poor ideas, like "spin-ick".
Who uses that other than you, anyway? Do you tell
people that they will "Rue the day" Eddie?
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Un-Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
We're not laughing _with_ bRay!
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Namer of the 10-gallon Creel
Keeper of the Nickname List
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Irony Alert
news:10807931...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> example: he claims his misdemeanor criminal conviction was
> "just a traffic ticket" when in reality traffic tickets aren't
> misdemeanors.
No, traffic tickets are written for "violations."
Criminal denial is something that _ALL_ criminally oriented kooks have in
common. Take the Kazoo for example; he is a seven time felon, yet he denies
his felonious record stating that it was his strawman sockpuppet that was
convicted.
--
The afa-b Irony Alert
Skepticultist 578-44631-005
Serving alt.fan.art-bell since 2003
Tyrannical Kookologist of the New World Order
Bookman
<el...@no.spam> wrote in message news:10807970...@localhost.localdomain...
> In article <1uNac.17680$z%1.5...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> Bookman <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
>
> >Try this one on for size: "K00kl00p"(v.) - When a Usenet
> >nutkase who keeps repeating the same k00ky klames
> >over and over without adding any new kontent.
>
>
Is he fr00t-flav0red?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com:
AAM & AUK added. Fuck you, Eddieeee.
> A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group
Edmo! There's no conspiracy, you paranoid nutcase. It's just that a great
number of people think you're a scumbag, liar and deadbeat. It's not like
they have no evidence to support it.
FYI, the evidence is your own actions and words, fuckwipe.
> who hides behind the skepticism concept
Why is it that you claims to profess facts and others only hide behind
concepts? I suppose SDSU and Kepler did exactly that when they punted
your flabby ass out the door.
> and attempts to belittle a paradigm or area of
> interest without investigation,
Ed, you have been investigated. You were caught plagiarizing too.
You've even been convicted and lied about it.
> knowledge,
Too many people know you're a scumbucket. Try again.
> or study of any sort.
Your words are all anyone needs to study to figure out that you are in
need of some serious professional help.
> This is bigotry, not skepticism.
No, it's "considering the lying and delusional source", kook. HTH!
> Propaganda is then "spun" against the
> paradigm/person and they are religiously and zealously defamed
> (evidenced by the multitude of defamation sites under my name-none of
> which evidence any truth whatever).
Thanks for admitting that your own words are lies, Pantyhead.
> The individual or groups then hold
> dogmatically onto their fallacious refutation despite all
> discrediting, academic refutation, or current/past acceptance by a
> large majority of said paradigm by the populace. This is called
> religion.
No, it's called your irrational paranoia.
> Spinic's actions betray their stated goals of "skepticism" by the
> malicious defamation they perpetrate. Their continued hounding and
> defamation of those they are bigoted against continues unabated
> despite evidence of the validity and value of the paradigms they seek
> to denigrate, from their bigotry not logic. Their psychological denial
> of facts, refutations, and evidenced constructiveness of the paradigms
> they seek to denigrate only evidences their own insecurity and
> intellectual deficiency. Ignored are the rights, dignity, choice or
> desire for preference of the individuals/groups they seek to destroy
> through this propagandic spin and defamation.
Nice rant, freak.
> The indices listed below are valid referenced academic areas of
> accepted knowledge that refutes and describes the fallacious and
> defective arguments of the typical spinic's attempts to "color" their
> defamation as "argument" or disagreement.
Which you've taken out of context when it suit you.
[screed flushed]
Thank you for the gift of your meltdown.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because
of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time
period and now" - Edmo the paleontologist.
Carl R. Osterwald
<gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote:
It is odd that he has decided infest afa-b with wollscreed; I can't
recall him ever poasting here prior to this one. Judging by his
30-km-wide cross poast list, he probably thinks it is a 'paranormal'
gruppe.
Jim Phillips
A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
disagree with him.
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"I was God once."
"Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died."
-- Bender & God
Daedalus
wrote:
>A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
idiocy of Asstroglogy?
>The individual or groups then hold
>dogmatically onto their fallacious refutation despite all discrediting,
Have you met, Joseph Bartlo?
<Mongo snippage of obsesso eddie crap>
I didn't read your bullshit complaints yet again. I doubt anyone did.
But I'm betting you used that same asinine quote by your astrology
hero about the 'unique' place of astrology in human belief.
You know, that quote I effectively rip to shreds every time you post
it?
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
You're useless, Eddie.
Jade
Dan Baldwin
>
> A spinic is a
abuser" Wollmann in a vain attempt to puff up the tattered shreds of his
intellectual credibility in the eyes of the few corners of Usenet not
yet aware of his long history of assclownery. As with many other kooks,
Edmo likes to think his silly little made-up words will be adopted by
Usenet at large as the first step in their rallying behind Edmo to do
battle with all the meanyheads who've been exposing him for the
fraudulent, abusive, disingenuous bastard he is.
To date one of the very few people other than Edmo to use the word
"spinic" in a non ironical sense was bDan "PSF/NCAT" Kettler.
Calculating just how much value bDan's support has added to Edmo's cause
over the years is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hail Ming, motherfucker.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
"I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because
of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time
period and now" -Edmo the paleontologist
"If the whole group must be ruined to prevent that, so be it. Few if
anyone comes to my defense, so why the hell should I care if they have a
good place to post ?" -Foamy Bartmo, Phyrric meteorologist
"Christ was just an enlightened person, not unlike me." -Edmo the humble
"I am an authority, and I do not force my views on others like you do."
-Edmo, enemy of Irony Meters all over Usenet
"It's not Latin, clueless wannabe tryhard." -Fucknozzle Junior
discussing the phrase 'Illegimati non carborundum'(sic)
Hail the un-alive
Mr. 4X
news:35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com:
> A spinic is
someone who doesn't believe the Wollkook's screeds.
Cardinal Chunder
> A spinic
<chop>
A 'spinic' is a word made up by a certain cry baby whiner who is
incapable of accepting criticism of his deeply flawed beliefs or the
appalling screed he uses to express them.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>A spinic is
... anyone who disagrees with you. Sign me up, FuckHead.
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
DrPostman
wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
>>skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm or area of
>
>Mr. Wollmann, do you actually seek out ridicule? If so, you are
>exhibiting remarkable skill.
That's why he xposted this to afa-b. He knows damned well that
he will only get abuse from us, but since it is the only way for him
to find validation in his pathetic life he comes here with the spank
me sign begging for it.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com
"Carl, you can lead a kook to wisdom, but you can't make him learn"
- Irony Alert
Edmond Wollmann
> A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> disagree with him.
Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
present real arguments created.
Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
possibility.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Irony Alert
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > disagree with him.
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
There is nothing in Websters attributing "kook" to anyone, let alone Mr.
Phillips. It has, for all intents and purposes, been a word since before
any of were born and is thought to be an abbreviated form of "Cuckoo."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kook&db=*
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy
[Possibly from cuckoo.]
n : someone regarded as eccentric or crazy [syn: odd fellow, odd fish, queer
bird, queer duck]
> Spinic= <snip>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spinic&db=*
No entry found for spinic
> Edmond H. Wollmann <snip>
> Astrological Consulting
If you cannot use an online dictionary to verify your assertions concerning
basic vocabulary, then why should anyone consider your "consulting"
abilities to be of any worth, even if what you were consulting were a
worthwhile and respectable endeavor?
--
The afa-b Irony Alert
Skepticultist 578-44631-005
Serving alt.fan.art-bell since 2003
Tyrannical Kookologist of the New World Order
Dan Baldwin
>
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > disagree with him.
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
Show us a reference work with the word 'spinic' in it then, fuckwit. And
no, your PoS "book" doesn't count as a reference work, unless we're
discussing incoherent, self aggrandizing drivel.
Dan Baldwin
EHWollmann wrote:
>
> >From: "Irony Alert" Dri...@StealthTrucks.COM
>
> >Message-id: <RXhbc.165816$po.973571@attbi_s52>
>
> >Edmond Wollmann" <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> >> > A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> >> > disagree with him.
>
> >> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> >> present real arguments created.
>
> >There is nothing in Websters attributing "kook" to anyone, let alone Mr.
> >Phillips. It has, for all intents and purposes, been a word since before
> >any of were born and is thought to be an abbreviated form of "Cuckoo."
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kook&db=*
> >A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy
> >[Possibly from cuckoo.]
> >n : someone regarded as eccentric or crazy [syn: odd fellow, odd fish, queer
> >bird, queer duck]
>
> "Missing the point"
something fuckhead Edmo does each and every time he throws his hissey
fits in abuse groups about nocems and 'stalking'.
revlove
"Phoenix" <pe...@hail.ming> wrote in message
news:c4itj1$oia$3...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> In article <7uso605r45pg2fl2s...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Officer <bobmunge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:29:37 -0700, in alt.astrology, Phoenix
> > <pe...@hail.ming> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <thlo6018kkth0fqvd...@4ax.com>,
> > > Bob Officer <bobmunge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:51:47 GMT, in alt.astrology, Peter J Ross
> > >> <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:39:00 -0700, Carl R. Osterwald wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> In article <35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com>,
Edmond
> > >> >> Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind
the
> > >> >>> skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm FLUSH
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Your personal battles with windmills are off-topic in afa-b.
> > >> >
> > >> >I'm so used to Eddy's posts being complete nonsense that it took me
a
> > >> >moment to realise that he didn't use the phrase "a paradigm flush".
> > >>
> > >>
jacket.
> > >
> > >I think it's more like watching the screed of five Kooks circling down
> > >the drain.
> >
> > Nah! they are all wearing the same suit, a straight jacket...
>
> You can be in a straightjacket and still be circling down the drain.
I think its required attire for such watersport.
~rev
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
>> A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
>> disagree with him.
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
That's funny! How come I can find "kook" in my dictionary but not "spinic",
you incredibly st00pid cocksucker?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"Have you people gone for counseling for your addiction to both
stupidity and the newsgroups?" - Ed vaporizes another Irony Meter.
Bookman
"Irony Alert" <Dri...@StealthTrucks.COM> wrote in message
news:RXhbc.165816$po.973571@attbi_s52...
Oh, "spinic" is in use, but Edmo's definition has nothing to do with it.
'Pears that it is a hi-density manetic data storage tactic:
http://www.riec.tohoku.ac.jp/lab/spinics-center/index-e.html
Eddieeeee's just pissed 'cause no one likes his lame neologism.
Doesn't look like anyone likes mine, either, but that's OK by me.
Not every idea works, after all.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Un-Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
We're not laughing _with_ bRay!
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Namer of the 10-gallon Creel
Keeper of the Nickname List
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > disagree with him.
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
From American Heritage Dictionary:
Kook (n. Slang): An eccentric, zany person.
Spinic: No entry.
> Spinic=
Anyone that Eddy Wollmann doesn't like.
revlove
"Bookman" <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:u7lbc.38504$z%1.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Hey Bookie...you mispelled: "noologism."
~rev
Bookman
news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > disagree with him.
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
Sykick powers, Eddiieeeeee? Is that how you know what Jim was thinking?
Or is this just another of your patented IKYABWAIs?
>
> Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
> it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
> defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
> for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
> possibility.
Since we're playing "Made-up definitions" today, here's mine:
K00K=A disingenuous lame-whining and fraudulent bigot, who does
not investigate anything scientifically before attempting to peddle it as
"TRVTH". A person who has 0 insight into anything, whose psychology and
defective logical thinking processes EVOKES laughter among those among
the Clue-minatti, and is responsible for, 99% of the haet lits and "I AM THE
ONLY TRUE TRVUTH" screeds on Usenet, and shows obsession with those
which they fear, i.e. those who wont blindly follow said K00K. Especially
if their name is Edmond and/or Wollmann.
Like it? And the beauty of it is that _my_ definition is *just* as
truthful as _yours_ is! Isn't that great? Wheee!
Bookman
"revlove" <prev...@foo.org> wrote in message news:_Klbc.86682$Bg.74014@fed1read03...
n00dlgasm? is that what Edmo did? Ick! Squick!
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<Dri...@StealthTrucks.COM> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
He should have known you would do that.
Irony Alert
news:q3cs6050l7d7483ff...@4ax.com...
He's been around forever and he still hasn't learned.
Jb
"Carl R. Osterwald" <i...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:310320042139003775%i...@mac.com...
> In article <35325a08.04033...@posting.google.com>, Edmond
> Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
> > skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm FLUSH
>
> Your personal battles with windmills are off-topic in afa-b.
You know, Eddie, I just bought a Cockatiel that my wife considered calling
"windmill". Thanks for changing our minds.
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-
>
> Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, and Gubmint Disinformation Agent
Jack
Cardinal Chunder
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
>
>>A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
>>disagree with him.
>
>
> Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> present real arguments created.
Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
Edmond Wollmann
Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet and even
created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with, and
who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
views. You all do this because actually learning, growing and
broadening your mind is far more difficult than simply throwing the
KOOK title at someone.
Carl R. Osterwald
Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > >>A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > >>disagree with him.
>
> > > Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> > > present real arguments created.
>
> > Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
> > British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
>
> Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet and even
> created groups to describe people whose views YOU FLUSH
Your whines are on-topic in afa-b.
Bookman
"Edmond Wollmann" <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com...
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
> > >>A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
> > >>disagree with him.
>
> > > Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
> > > present real arguments created.
>
> > Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
> > British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
>
> Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet and even
> created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with, and
> who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> views. You all do this because actually learning, growing and
> broadening your mind is far more difficult than simply throwing the
> KOOK title at someone.
You funny, Eddiieeeeeeee! I'm learning and
growing every day, stretching my mind and
broadening my horizons.
What your message _really_ means (INO) is that you
hate it when people challenge or disagree with you, so
you invented your lame neologism in a vain attempt
to discount people who call you on your k0oky notions.
Won any Usenet lawsuits yet?
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Un-Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
We're not laughing _with_ bRay!
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Namer of the 10-gallon Creel
Keeper of the Nickname List
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
>
>
>>>>A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who
>>>>disagree with him.
>
>
>
>>>Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
>>>present real arguments created.
>
>
>
>>Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
>>British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
>
>
> Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
I see. So the fact that the word is well defined even in 1992 (and
before) means we made it up for the Usenet?
I hate to burst your bubble but nutcases with forthright and hilariously
bizarre views and behaviour are the reason there is a 'KOOK concept' on
the internet.
> and even
> created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
You mean created groups to describe well established kooks.
> and
> who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> views.
You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
As for being more intelligent, how do you gauge that? Is it by mangling
the English language? Or by self destructive behaviour? Or by closing
your ears and never listening to reason or simple logic? Or by writing a
vanity book? Or by posting the same canned screed for years and years?
Or by plagiarism? Or from being booted off numerous ISPs? Or to be
awarded various AUK prizes? Or to have not budged the foundations of the
arts or science a nanometer that whole time?
You tell me.
> You all do this because actually learning, growing and
> broadening your mind is far more difficult than simply throwing the
> KOOK title at someone.
The KOOK title wasn't thrown at you, it was presented for your services
to kookdom.
Dr. Flonkenstein
Wollmann posted:
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<Pine.SOL.3.96.1040401100742.18520C-100000@mail>...
>
>> >>A made-up word that Eddy Wollmann uses to describe people who disagree
>> >>with him.
>
>> > Incorrect. You are thinking of that word "KOOK" that you who cannot
>> > present real arguments created.
>
>> Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
>> British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
>
> Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet and even
> created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
It's not a question about disagreeing or not, it is all about the ridicule
that emanates from kooks, and the eternal stock of laughter they represent.
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
Bartlo's hate lits #1: <40376AD8...@enter.net>
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
Chris Krolczyk
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Actually kook, the word 'kook' is a widely recognized word. Even my 1992
> > British Collins Concise English Dictionary has a listing for it.
>
> Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet and even
> created groups to describe people whose views YOU disaSLAP!
STFU, Edmo.
The people who get deemed "kooks" are not synonymous with
"anyone we disagree with". Matter of fact, there's been
plenty of astrologers on alt.astrology who've never been
flamed. You're just *not* one of them.
> and
> who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> views.
According to
your idea of what constitutes "intelligence" or "capability"
is quite a *bit* at odds with most definitions of those
words.
> You all do this because actually learning, growing and
> broadening your mind is far more difficult than simply throwing the
> KOOK title at someone.
Spoken like the paranoid, egomaniacal twit you are.
Oh, and no astrology to discuss, either.
What a shock.
-Chris Krolczyk
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > and even
> > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > and
> > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > views.
> You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
revlove
"Phoenix" <pe...@hail.ming> wrote in message
> In article <35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com>,
> alcha...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote:
>
> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> > news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > > > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > > > and even
> > > > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > > > and
> > > > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > > > views.
> >
> > > You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> > > are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> >
> > Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> > have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> > answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> > given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> > guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
>
> the power to release you, and power to ridicule you?" Eddy answered him,
> "Never had to, look PONTIUS the stalker freak--I went to the proper
> agencies and asked what I needed to do what I do--they sent me down the
> hall and gave me the licensces--YOU ARE AN INSIGNIFICANT PAIN IN THE
> ASS. I have NEVER been questioned by police (except for the charges I
> have filed against you freaks) for any sort of wrongdoing with my
> counsel in TWENTY FIVE YEARS, or looked at in anyway with suspicion or
> fraud like you assert. I have however, been honored, inteviewed, on the
> rabbi's list, accomplished more academic work (arts AND sciences) than
> any other person I know in record time, learned dozens of subjects with
> ease and have become an expert in many. I do NOT fail, I do NOT lose and
> I AM NOT intimidated by ANYTHING. Get it."
"Well," said Eddie: "Will you give me no peace at all by night or day ?"
~rev
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
>> > message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>> > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>> > and even
>> > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>> > and
>> > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>> > views.
>
>> You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>> are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
> Pilate to Christ [slap!]
Do you have any lawsuits, crab wontons or food stamps to discuss,
unaffected one?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"I was an astrologer 1000 times in Babylon." - Edmo the loon.
Irony Alert
news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
> > > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > > and even
> > > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > > and
> > > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > > views.
>
> > You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> > are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
You are not Jesus Christ.
--
The afa-b Irony Alert
Skepticultist 578-44631-005
Serving alt.fan.art-bell since 2003
Tyrannical Kookologist of the New World Order
Flinty McNutstain
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>>>and even
>>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>>>and
>>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>>>views.
>
>
>
>>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
>
> Pilate to Christ "Do you rSPEW
Like he said; here you are, spewing.
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>>>and even
>>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>>>and
>>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>>>views.
>
>
>
>>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
> Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
You are not Jesus kook boy.
You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
It's funny you didn't see this coming in the stars. How ironic is that?
You spend your whole life looking at astral tea leaves and stellar
entrails, but utterly fail to see your final station in life - usenet
kook and court jester.
Perhaps the stars really tried to tell you. Perhaps they spoke of your
fame, the accolades and the laughter, and you were too dazzled to pay
heed of the "but you're not going to like any of them" clause.
Oh well, better luck in the next life.
revlove
"Bob Officer" <bobmunge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jao470dlbkfhi7pd9...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Apr 2004 21:06:54 -0700, in alt.astrology, alcha...@yahoo.com
> (Edmond Wollmann) wrote:
>
> >Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> >> > and even
> >> > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> >> > and
> >> > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> >> > views.
> >
> >> You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> >> are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> >
> >Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> >have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> >answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> >given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> >guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
>
> --
> Aktohdi
Is it? How so?
~rev
It's my birthday.
Dan Baldwin
>
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
> > > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > > and even
> > > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > > and
> > > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > > views.
>
> > You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> > are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
> Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?"
The rest of the world to Edmo : "Shut the fuck up already, you
degenerate, spamming fuckhead!"
Dan Baldwin
>
> "Edmond Wollmann" <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > > > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > > > and even
> > > > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > > > and
> > > > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > > > views.
> >
> > > You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> > > are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> >
> > Pilate to Christ <snip>
>
> You are not Jesus Christ.
Take note of the following Edmo quote from my .sig : "Christ was just an
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> >>>and even
> >>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> >>>and
> >>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> >>>views.
> >>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> >>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> > Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> > have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> > answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> > given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> > guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
> You are not Jesus kook boy.
No kidding!
> You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
> meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
> numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
I see. I hyave never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
Nor have I lost an argument ever. You consider long paragraphs
"meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
writer or commentator in "meltdown." Finally, after years and years of
you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
(i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass me
and call me a kook. I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the kooks.
Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
person is a kook.
It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy. So, I have devised
a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
daddy's computer:
Notable repost from June 1996-
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
Paul Schlyter wrote;
> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
> you "right", but through a circular definition.
Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of
delineation
of the horoscope. This will in effect remove any doubts from my mind
that you are an objective observer, and allow status as peer
reviewers-as they say, and as several scientist types have argued.
Because this will show that you have studied it thoroughly and your
opinions are construed from logical premise to the best of your
ability
with integrity, honesty and true skepticism.
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible. This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which
is
all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included
in
the argument that definitely would lead us to different conclusions
(most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please state your
status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has
BEEN
PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th
Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991,
page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
Any one in the academic community would require MUCH more than this to
allow anyone to PUBLISH their works let alone debate it with those
knowledgeable in their own fields.
Otherwise your statement above has serious complications. You and
other
cynics argue the "basis in fact" premise day in and day out. If you
cannot prove that you have a working knowledge of astrology then any
further statements you or any other cynic make are fallacious and
misleading based on the this defect. A fallacy is a defect in an
argument. Your conclusion is not supported by the premises. You commit
the fallacy of argument against the person (tu quoque) often. I have
demonstrated some (a little) knowledge of other disciplines. You have
demonstrated none of astrology. You attempt to make the astrology
arguers appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
Here is the chart you must delineate;
female
1/26/57
5:00 pm lmt
Raton, New Mexico
Explain the reigning psychological need of the identity and how this
was
internalized through the parental structure. Explain how needs are
reflected through identity/status, worth/extension and
thinking/perspective profiles based on aspect patterns and networks.
Demonstrate (when you get to projection techniques) how these needs
and
beliefs are brought forward and reflected in actual reality
experiences
(you may reference any of my works on usenet if you need help).
Please name these patterns and what sort of schema they reflect.
Please
give us your evaluation of the elemental count and how this reflects
balance psychologically. Incorporate the Sun/Moon blend in this
backdrop
and explain how it affects this blend. Then tie in aspect patterns,
house rulers and dispositors from this basis.
Define the greatest fears of the identity and what type of attachment
schema ie., (F)-autonomous, (DS)- dismissing, (E)- preoccupied and
the
extent of resolution (U) possibilities (optional). Describe the
identity's energy application mode, need to prove the self, find
personal and social reflection, needs for opportunity and reward,
strategic application of the self to avoid fears through the superego
construct. Explain through planetary structures, patterns and trees
how
it is reflected whether the individual inclines to extroversion or
introversion patterns and how this would be reflected on the Kiersey
Temperament sorter by the patterns seen. (optional if you are brave).
Define needs for individuation and self sacrifice and the whole law of
momentum flow as articulated throughout the self's particular
perspective. If your inclination is spiritual or karmic you may
include
these ideas, but they must be tied to actual reality experiences for
verification. Explain how these deductions would be reflected in what
types of behavior. Explain how at least 5 asteroid bodies add nuance
to
these initial deductions and your plan or recommendations for
remediation and further or greater articulation of this identity's
self
fulfillment within the 40th year of life.
Please include major arcs, progressions and other phenomena that you
feel to be critical periods of the identity's fulfillment of self
actualization (or defeat) and explain how you have come to these
conclusions. Tie these to the current reality experience suggested at
the 40th year.
This reflects some of the initial or basic work to be done on this
client prior to meeting with the astrologer. I will not ask you for
full
workups that are asked for in such tests as I took just this, although
I
was not allowed to use a computer, you can. Again although I had a
time
limit, there is no time limit for you (within reason).
Please identify;
Tropical or sidereal or whatever, aspect orbs, house systems,
dispositor
mechanics and other pertinent mathematical measurements so there will
be
no discrepancy between comparisons when your work is checked.
Refer to interpretation models that you are using so we speak the same
language. In other words the philosophical orientation of the specific
astrologer or astrologers that you are using in this delineation, i.e.
humanistic, Jungian, esoteric etc.
If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding (or any
other cynic foolish enough to continue this debate) I suggest that
when
you come to this newsgroup it will be for an education, to ask
questions
of the many qualified astrologers who post here off and on,
or to inquire as to information to assist you in the learning of some
of
the above- not for ego gratification to trash those you think
superstitious. Thank you for your maturity in this matter.
Dan Baldwin
>
> it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
Yes. Yes it is, Edmo.
Irony Alert
news:4072EA76...@invalid.com...
> Irony Alert wrote:
> >
> > "Edmond Wollmann" <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> > news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
message
> > news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > >
> > > > > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> > > > > and even
> > > > > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> > > > > and
> > > > > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> > > > > views.
> > >
> > > > You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims
you
> > > > are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> > >
> > > Pilate to Christ <snip>
> >
> > You are not Jesus Christ.
>
> Take note of the following Edmo quote from my .sig : "Christ was just an
> enlightened person, not unlike me."
It seems like an awful lot of kooks have been running the Godhood/Christhood
schtick. bRaymond Karczewski and Pennis' "DOG MAI" sock come readily to
mind. I keep waiting for Yosef Fartmo to declare his own personal
Christhood, or at least a Papacy.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4ttt...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
>> > message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
>> >>>message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>> >>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>> >>>and even
>> >>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>> >>>and
>> >>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>> >>>views.
>
>> >>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims
>> >>you are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
>> > Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know
>> > that I have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?"
>> > Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had
>> > been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to
>> > you is guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
>
>> You are not Jesus kook boy.
>
> No kidding!
Jesus never bragged about killing children by making his car flip end
over end. You're closer to Teddy Kennedy, loser.
>> You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
>> meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up
>> with numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
>
> I see. I hyave never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!1!!!
You certainly haven't when you've got edited email to try and blackmail
them with. That's about it.
Let's discuss that over lunch at PF Chang's, coward.
> Nor have I lost an argument ever.
That reminds me! How did that tort you filed against SDSU go? You never
told us. BTW, that poor bastard you ratted out to Amazon for hacking your
reviews lives in Colorado. How did that go? <snigger>
> You consider long paragraphs "meltdowns",
No, I consider long run-on sentences typical of your rants to be
meltdowns.
> which is complete non-sense and would make every great
> writer or commentator in "meltdown."
Bullshit.
> Finally, after years and years of
> you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
> (i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
> bandwidth),
Which you have, douchebag. How many complaints about me have you sent,
Eddieeee? They always get the same result too.
> it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
It sure is, Pantyhead.
> Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
> think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass me
> and call me a kook.
It's a lot more than 4, Eddieeee. You're the laughingstock of Usenet.
> I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
> helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
> outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
Prove it.
> I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the kooks.
.sig material noted.
> Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
> answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
> person is a kook.
No, I understand that you're a kook based on your ridiculous statements.
The rest of your incoherent babble is more like watching a train wreck.
> It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy. So, I have devised
> a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
> perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
> daddy's computer:
[screed flushed]
It's screed and babble, asshole.
I guess I passed.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"I have NEVER been incorrect!" - Ed in denial.
Chris Krolczyk
> Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
Oh, look. Edmo's comparing himself to *Christ*.
The laughs just keep on coming.
-Chris Krolczyk
Sir Gilligan Horry
>In article <c4tdv4$is2$3...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
>Phoenix <pe...@hail.ming> wrote:
>
>>Pilate to Wollmann
>
>Anything to do with this:
>
> http://pilates.spinics.net/
* The spinal column is a long bunch of bones. The head sits on the top
and you sit on the bottom.
* The earth makes a resolution every 24 hours.
* As the rain forests in the Amazon are shrinking, so are the Indians.
countertroll
People bait you on your silly screed and you want to debate and analyze. You
are one funny fuckface.
hahaha
Orange Claw Hammer
wrote:
>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>> > Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>> > and even
>> > created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>> > and
>> > who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>> > views.
>
>> You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>> are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
>Pilate to Christ "Do you
Screed posted, you lose.
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://ww spam/
>Artworks http://www.astrocon spam
>http://home.earth spam
Carl R. Osterwald
wrote:
> In article <3g0670hi8hrqft1n2...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Officer <Ihat...@no-domain.no.mail@no-net> wrote:
>
> >>>Comparing yourself to the legend of Christ is just a sign of insanity
>
> >>Is it? How so?
>
> >"Christ was just an enlightened person, not unlike me." a Quote from Eddy's
> >archive
>
> Don't for get this one:
>
> "I am God revealing these truths TO YOU."
++afab_messiah_count;
Flinty McNutstain
> it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
Abundantly so, you insane kook!
Edmond Wollmann
Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
possibility.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Carl R. Osterwald
<arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[hugesnip]
> Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> not investigate anything realistically before attempting to FLUSH
Whiner.
Dan Baldwin
>
>
not a fucking thing worth reading the first time, much less the
countless times it was reposted.
Challenge to you - grow some man-fruits and post that list of accounts
you claimed I've lost, as well as your evidence that I'm either Susan or
her ex, you blowhard fraudulent fuckstain.
Daedalus
<arctur...@earthlink.net>, wrote:
>Notable repost from June 1996-
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
>> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
>> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
>> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote;
>
>> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
>> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
>> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
>> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
>> you "right", but through a circular definition.
>
>Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
>of the horoscope.
Strawman - The horoscope has no scientific basis. Delineation of a non
scientific idea is therefore itself unscientific and no repeatable
results can be assumed.
It is not necessary to have a working knowledge of something
unscientific to prove it is unscientific.
Therefore, you are still a moron.
Jade
Irony Alert
news:40744E...@earthlink.net...
> If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding <snip>
IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!
> Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
> it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
> defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
> for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
> possibility.
That word isn't in Webster's, Wollie, ergo, it doesn't exist.
--
The afa-b Irony Alert
Skepticultist 578-44631-005
Serving alt.fan.art-bell since 2003
Tyrannical Kookologist of the New World Order
Mr. 4X
> Notable repost from June 1996-
[flush]
> Spinic=[slap]
Someone who doesn't believe the Wollkook's crap.
Chris Krolczyk
> Notable repost from June 1996-
It's only "notable" for being useless, kookboi.
-Chris Krolczyk
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<40744E...@earthlink.net>:
>Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
>of the horoscope.
Dear Eddie,
Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are cordially invited
to blow me at your earliest convenience, DickHead.
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.04040...@posting.google.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4ttt...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>
>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>
>>>>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>>>>>and even
>>>>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>>>>>and
>>>>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>>>>>views.
>
>
>
>>>>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>>>>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>
>
>
>>>Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
>>>have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
>>>answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
>>>given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
>>>guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
>
>
>
>>You are not Jesus kook boy.
>
> No kidding!
>
Then why quote the Bible then numbnuts?
>>You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
>>meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
>>numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
>
> I see. I hyave never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
Yes you have all the time. Your weasel words demonstrate that you run
away like a baby from anything you consider to not be a "real argument".
> Nor have I lost an argument ever.
Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose. Big
time.
> You consider long paragraphs
> "meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
> writer or commentator in "meltdown."
No I consider long, rambling and disjointed paragraphs or meaningless
buzzwords to be screed.
I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing your
rag when you don't get your own way.
> Finally, after years and years of
> you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
> (i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
> bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
> Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
> think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass me
> and call me a kook.
How did you quantify this 4? I'm sure if someone were to dig up the AUK
votes we would see you gain substantially more than that.
Or are you suggesting that your votes and all your detractors (including
the sample found in this thread) are all sockpuppets?
> I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
> helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
> outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
"I have raped hundreds of women and my work is useful because they are
all bitches and god told me to do it."
As you can see usefulness is all about context. While you might think
you are 'useful', most of us think you are a parasite and a conman. And
a kook.
But anyhow. Since you grossly underestimate how many people know you are
a kook you must also grossly overestimate the number of clients you
have. So if we were to apply your 'outweigh' logic, the number of
detractors (including past clients) greatly outweighs the rubes you have
managed to scam.
So by your own admission you are a kook.
> I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the kooks.
There is one kook under discussion in this thread. So you will explain
how the sum total of your detractors can be less than 1.
> Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
> answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
> person is a kook.
But if the reason for not understanding is because the other person is
writing long winded incoherent screed?
And that is exactly what you do. Not once, but repeatedly.
It's so hard to figure why people you a kook what with the canned
screed, netcopping, hypocrisy and other abuses you perpetrate.
> It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy.
I see. So everyone is incompetent because you bugger the English
language into indecipherable treatises?
Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
"The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the conjunction
of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted - the adjunct of
preceding events to polar North and healing effects of magnetic North
combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
base of Uranus."
Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
incompetent.
> So, I have devised
> a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
> perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
> daddy's computer:
I don't care who you think I am Eddy.
Dan Baldwin
>
<snip a nice slow-roasting of Edmo>
> [...] healing effects of magnetic North
> combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
> base of Uranus."
I am hereby serving you notice that I fully intend to stea^H^H^H^Hreuse
with permission the above phrase at some point in the future.
Hail Ming.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<sini...@concentric.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<1dla701imuirp4dbd...@4ax.com>:
>X-No-Archive: Yes.
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:23:03 -0800, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
><vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
>><arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>><40744E...@earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>>>Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
>>>of the horoscope.
>>
>>Dear Eddie,
>>
>>Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are cordially invited
>>to blow me at your earliest convenience, DickHead.
>
>You're going to have to wait until he finishes his regular clients
>from the biker bar in La Jolla.
Oh. Well, it's an open invitation.
Edmond Wollmann
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> <40744E...@earthlink.net>:
> >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
> >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
> >of the horoscope.
> Dear Eddie,
> Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are cordially invited
> to blow me at your earliest convenience, DickHead.
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible. This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which
is all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then
the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we
have no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's"
knowledge of astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge
is included in the argument that definitely would lead us to different
conclusions (most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please
state your status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed.
Logic, Hurley, 91.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has
BEEN PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion
then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits
"an appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th
Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991,
page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
AOL http://hometown.aol.com/ehwollmann/myhomepage/business.html
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <40744E...@earthlink.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [hugesnip]
>
> > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to FLUSH
>
> Whiner.
One worder.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Edmond Wollmann
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> <arctur...@earthlink.net>, wrote:
> >Notable repost from June 1996-
> >Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
> >> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
> >> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
> >> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
> >> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
> >Paul Schlyter wrote;
> >> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
> >> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
> >> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
> >> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
> >> you "right", but through a circular definition.
> >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
> >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
> >of the horoscope.
> Strawman - The horoscope has no scientific basis. Delineation of a non
> scientific idea is therefore itself unscientific and no repeatable
> results can be assumed.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Edmond Wollmann
> "Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40744E...@earthlink.net...
> > If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding <snip>
> IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!
> > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
> > it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
> > defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
> > for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
> > possibility.
> That word isn't in Webster's, Wollie, ergo, it doesn't exist.
Irrelevent. Are you saying that the concept doesn't exist? Simply
because a word doesn't exist in the dictionary, doesn't mean the
concept doesn't exist in experiential reality.
"Hasty generalization" is a fallacy that affects inductive
generalizations....an inductive generalization is an argument that
draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that
pertains to a selected example. The fallacy occurs when there is a
reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the
group. Such a likelihood is likely if the sample is either too small
or not randomly selected." Logic, Hurley, 4th edition, 1991.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Edmond Wollmann
"KOOK"=someone who disagrees with spinics.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Dan Baldwin
>
> "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message news:<7bh9705fdskec3uah...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> > <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> > <40744E...@earthlink.net>:
>
> > >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
> > >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
> > >of the horoscope.
>
> > Dear Eddie,
>
> > Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are cordially invited
> > to blow me at your earliest convenience, DickHead.
>
Wollmann's law invoked, screed removed.
Where's the list of accounts you claimed I've lost, coward?
Edmond Wollmann
In your small and insignificant world. Please try to at least present
an argument.
A valid and sound deductive argument is one that has a true premises
and a true conclusion-it is deductive, which contains nothing new in
the conclusion (like math). Inductive arguments are weak or strong
(never certain which all are here inductive) if they have a true
premises and true conclusion (strong and cogent) or true premises and
(probably) false conclusion (weak uncogent). In this way they are
determined to be cogent or not based on strong argument+True premises.
sound argument=valid deductive argument + true premises=definite true
conclusion
cogent argument=strong inductive argument + true premises=probably
true conclusion
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Dan Baldwin
>
> Daedalus <jad...@sasquatchiswatchingyou.com> wrote in message news:<pmn870plq5qkci72t...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> > <arctur...@earthlink.net>, wrote:
>
> > >Notable repost from June 1996-
>
> > >Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> > >> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
> > >> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
> > >> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
> > >> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
>
> > >Paul Schlyter wrote;
>
> > >> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
> > >> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
> > >> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
> > >> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
> > >> you "right", but through a circular definition.
>
> > >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
> > >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
> > >of the horoscope.
>
> > Strawman - The horoscope has no scientific basis. Delineation of a non
> > scientific idea is therefore itself unscientific and no repeatable
> > results can be assumed.
>
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
One-liner.
Dan Baldwin
>
> "Carl R. Osterwald" <i...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<070420041300275003%i...@mac.com>...
> > In article <40744E...@earthlink.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> > <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > [hugesnip]
> >
> > > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to FLUSH
> >
> > Whiner.
>
> One worder.
Some people prefer to be concise and accurate. It makes a nice contrast
with your long-winded, ridiculously ponderous word salads. And some
times one words fits to a 'T'. For example, any of the following words
accurately describe you all on their own:
liar
fuckhead
blowhard
narcissist
misogynist
plagiarist
coward
scammer
spammer
criminal
failure
projectionist
drop-out
obsessive
hateful
hypocrite
Pick any one of those you want - they're all good.
Dan Baldwin
>
> "Irony Alert" <Dri...@StealthTrucks.COM> wrote in message news:<O2_cc.86114$gA5.1059173@attbi_s03>...
> > "Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40744E...@earthlink.net...
>
> > > If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding <snip>
>
> > IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!
>
> > > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
> > > it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
> > > defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
> > > for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
> > > possibility.
>
> > That word isn't in Webster's, Wollie, ergo, it doesn't exist.
>
> Irrelevent. Are you saying that the concept doesn't exist?
Outside of the tiny slice of hell that is your feeble mind, no, the term
'spinic' doesn't exist. Lots of things only exist inside your mind,
Edmo. For instance :
Your degrees
Your clients
The PhDs who come to you for counsel
Your 30 year counseling history
Your credibility
Your honesty
Your coherency
Any power you might have to affect things on Usenet
Your sense of morality
Your sense of humanity
Your ability to empathize with another human being
Your respect for women
Your ability to deal with people who disagree with you
Your sanity
Outside of the Edmo Zone, none of these things exist, so there's no
point in coining any neologisms for them, unless we wish to discuss
hypothetically.
Carl R. Osterwald
Wollmann <alcha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Carl R. Osterwald" <i...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<070420041300275003%i...@mac.com>...
> > In article <40744E...@earthlink.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> > <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > [hugesnip]
> >
> > > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to FLUSH
> >
> > Whiner.
>
> One worder.
Two worder. You poast was just a big whine, and I responded in an
appropriate manner.
Dan Baldwin
>
> "Mr. 4X" <rando...@wdme.invalid.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94C4EBC...@195.228.240.20>...
> > Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40744E...@earthlink.net:
>
> > > Notable repost from June 1996-
>
> > [flush]
>
> > > Spinic=[slap]
>
> > Someone who doesn't believe the Wollkook's crap.
>
I agree with this post.
Dan Baldwin
>
> chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<40744E...@earthlink.net>...
>
> > > Notable repost from June 1996-
>
> > It's only "notable" for being useless, kookboi.
>
> > -Chris Krolczyk
>
> an argument.
Don't you have enough things to run away from like a whipped cur as-is,
Edmo?
Where's that list of accounts you've claimed I've lost, by the way?
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4ttt...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4r53...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4pfv...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >>>>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
> >>>>>and even
> >>>>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
> >>>>>views.
> >>>>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
> >>>>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
> >>>Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
> >>>have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
> >>>answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
> >>>given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
> >>>guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
> >>You are not Jesus kook boy.
> > No kidding!
> Then why quote the Bible then numbnuts?
Any idea that conveys the truth of any matter is "what I use."
> >>You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
> >>meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
> >>numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
> > I see. I have never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
> Yes you have all the time. Your weasel words demonstrate that you run
> away like a baby from anything you consider to not be a "real argument".
Where's your real argument, and where's the evidence?
> > Nor have I lost an argument ever.
> Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose. Big
> time.
I see, where's the evidence?
> > You consider long paragraphs
> > "meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
> > writer or commentator in "meltdown."
> No I consider long, rambling and disjointed paragraphs or meaningless
> buzzwords to be screed.
You mean like the one you have at the end of this disjointed and
fallacious post?
> I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing your
> rag when you don't get your own way.
No one cares what you think.
> > Finally, after years and years of
> > you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
> > (i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
> > bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
> Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
> accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
No, you spinics started it 7 years ago by labling me a kook simply
because my level of intelligence is so high and my knowledge of many
subjects you have NO knowledge of so coherent and comprehensive that
you had no other way to deal with me.
> > Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
> > think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass me
> > and call me a kook.
> How did you quantify this 4? I'm sure if someone were to dig up the AUK
> votes we would see you gain substantially more than that.
Look at the archives, there have been (for 7 years now) about 4-5
persistent harassers saying the same thing, using the same fallacies
and tactics all that time--no one pays attention to you idiots anymore
because of the profound predictability, but EVERYONE still pays
attention to me. YOU all are the kooks, and insane for trying the same
tactics long after everyone else has moved on from being bored to
tears.
> Or are you suggesting that your votes and all your detractors (including
> the sample found in this thread) are all sockpuppets?
They are all FAKE identities, they may very well be sockpuppets as
well.
Or is your birthname "Cardinal Chunder"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!
> > I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
> > helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
> > outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
> "I have raped hundreds of women and my work is useful because they are
> all bitches and god told me to do it."
"Weak Analogy" affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument
from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends upon the
existence of an analogy or similarity, between two things or
situations. Weak analogy fallacies are committed when the analogy is
not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Entity B has attributes a, b, c,.
Therefore entity B probably has attribute z also.
We would go through an evaluation process to determine the
correlations between these two ideas in order for it to be a strong
analogy. But since the analogy you use has NO similar attributes
(which you of course cannot know since you committed the first
fallacies to begin with), there is no reason to even consider such a
test. Therefore your imagined causal connection could be grounds for
another fallacy-but I'll let that one go-I think we have enough.
> As you can see usefulness is all about context. While you might think
> you are 'useful', most of us think you are a parasite and a conman. And
> a kook.
As you can see, all you infants can come up with is defective ad
hominems and name calling.
> But anyhow. Since you grossly underestimate how many people know you are
> a kook you must also grossly overestimate the number of clients you
> have. So if we were to apply your 'outweigh' logic, the number of
How could you possibly know how many clients I have? You freaks try to
pass your garbage off on me and you get NOWHERE. Anyone can look at
the archives and see for themselves the REPEATED same crap from you
obsessed freaks for 7 years now, they can also see me defeating you
for those 7 years.
> detractors (including past clients) greatly outweighs the rubes you have
> managed to scam.
Evidence, where's your evidence, spinic?
> So by your own admission you are a kook.
Straw man fallacy= Fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets
an opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then concludes that the
original argument has been demolished. "A Concise Introduction to
Logic", Hurley, 1991.
> > I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the kooks.
> There is one kook under discussion in this thread. So you will explain
> how the sum total of your detractors can be less than 1.
I am not discussing one KOOK I am discussing all of you spinic KOOKs.
> > Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
> > answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
> > person is a kook.
> But if the reason for not understanding is because the other person is
> writing long winded incoherent screed?
What is a dispositor in astrology? See, you don't know, now calling
someone names because of your own lack of diligence in educating
yourself is NOT evidence that their posts are "long winded incoherent
screed".
> And that is exactly what you do. Not once, but repeatedly.
Because you fail REPEATEDLY to educate yourself in the topic under
discussion in an ASTROLOGY or PARANORMAL group--that is YOUR defect,
not mine.
> It's so hard to figure why people you a kook what with the canned
> screed, netcopping, hypocrisy and other abuses you perpetrate.
And you say my posts are incoherent? Bwahahahahahahahahahahh!
> > It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy.
> I see. So everyone is incompetent because you bugger the English
> language into indecipherable treatises?
I was on the Dean's list at SDSU and scored 11 out of 12 points on the
upper division writing exams punk, I have no rpoblem conveying
concepts or anything else.
> Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
> "The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
> paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the conjunction
> of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted - the adjunct of
> preceding events to polar North and healing effects of magnetic North
> combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
> base of Uranus."
Absolutely nothing, because you are just making a mishmash of words
and saying that is what I write, when it isn't.
This is what I write:
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
Articles that you can barely follow, let alone ever hope to execute in
your own world.
> Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
> incompetent.
Jibberish.
Case closed.
> > So, I have devised
> > a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
> > perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
> > daddy's computer:
> I don't care who you think I am Eddy.
My name is Edmond to you sonny, and it is YOU who are obscure and
insignificant, primarily because you cannot raise your consciousness
out of the swine trough long enough to allow some learning in.
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Dan Baldwin
>
> > Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
> > accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
>
> No, you spinics started it 7 years ago by labling me a kook simply
> because my level of intelligence is so high and my knowledge of many
> subjects you have NO knowledge of so coherent and comprehensive that
> you had no other way to deal with me.
Next time put up a C&C warning before you post a howler like the above.
My poor cat is huddled in the corner afraid to come out now, you cruel
bastard.
Irony Alert
news:35325a08.0404...@posting.google.com...
> "Irony Alert" <Dri...@StealthTrucks.COM> wrote in message
news:<O2_cc.86114$gA5.1059173@attbi_s03>...
> > "Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40744E...@earthlink.net...
>
> > > If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding <snip>
>
> > IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!
>
> > > Spinic=A disingenuous fault-finding and spin-doctoring bigot, who does
> > > not investigate anything realistically before attempting to denigrate
> > > it. A person who has 0 insight into their own beliefs, psychology and
> > > defective logical thinking processes that EVOKES, and is responsible
> > > for, 99% of their predjudice and obsession with that which they fear a
> > > possibility.
>
> > That word isn't in Webster's, Wollie, ergo, it doesn't exist.
>
> Irrelevent. Are you saying that the concept doesn't exist? Simply
> because a word doesn't exist in the dictionary, doesn't mean the
> concept doesn't exist in experiential reality.
Your predilections for irrelevancy are present in this very thread, Wollard.
> "Hasty generalization" is a fallacy that affects inductive
> generalizations....an inductive generalization is an argument that
> draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that
> pertains to a selected example. The fallacy occurs when there is a
> reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the
> group. Such a likelihood is likely if the sample is either too small
> or not randomly selected." Logic, Hurley, 4th edition, 1991.
Are you so lacking in originality that you must constantly consign yourself
to parroting the quotes of others, or is this a tacit admission that your
own brainpower can never compare to that of others? Irregardless, your own
logic falters upon contrast with the requisite principals of scientific
deduction... you ascribe yourself to astrology, which is, unto itself,
silliness in one of it's basest forms. You are too intellectually lazy to
accept that you are what you do, and that the stars have nothing to do with
it.
Cardinal Chunder
> Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible. This is
> called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
> premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
> important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
> entails a very different conclusion.
You don't have to wade around in a sewer to know it is full of shit.
Cardinal Chunder
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:55:42 +0100, in alt.astrology, Cardinal Chunder
> <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>
>
>
>
>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>
>
>
>>>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>
>
>
>>>>>>>Irrelevant, you spinics made up the KOOK concept on usenet
>>>>>>>and even
>>>>>>>created groups to describe people whose views YOU disagree with,
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>who are more intelligent and capable than you in defending those
>>>>>>>views.
>>>
>>>>>>You have never defended them. When asked for proof of your claims you
>>>>>>are conspicuously silent or spew more screed.
>>>
>>>>>Pilate to Christ "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I
>>>>>have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus
>>>>>answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been
>>>>>given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is
>>>>>guilty of a greater sin." John 19:10,11
>>>
>>>>You are not Jesus kook boy.
>>>
>>>No kidding!
>>
>>Then why quote the Bible then numbnuts?
>
>
> he is still only doing one of two things. seeking validation or trolling
> for rubes. in this case eddy is using the Bible quotation seeking
> validation of his point of view. This cut and paste buffet of use quotation
> of writings completely ignore the prior admonishment against use of
> astrology and other "arts".
>>>>You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
>>>>meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
>>>>numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
>>>
>>>I see. I hyave never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
>>
>>Yes you have all the time. Your weasel words demonstrate that you run
>>away like a baby from anything you consider to not be a "real argument".
>
>
> Like him running away again in NANAU and here when challenged to explain
> why he considered my articles forgeries and 'abuse of the net'. You only
> have to look back a few weeks to find examples of this type of pure
> cowardice.
I've always wondered about his NANAU kookery. He has been told
repeatedly that they don't care (and that he deserves everything he
gets) and he still persists.
>>>Nor have I lost an argument ever.
>>
>>Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose. Big
>>time.
>
>
> Contentiously. Like him lying every time he states he never lies. Ask him
> why he no longer post the allegory of a cave? It is because he was caught
> plagiarizing Professor Ron Pine's work. But yet he maintains he didn't
> plagiarize Pine's work because it was send to him by another person.
> <snicker> And this man claims to have two real college degrees but doesn't
> understand what plagiarism is.
Eddy are you reading this? Tell me about the allegory of the cave.
>>>You consider long paragraphs
>>>"meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
>>>writer or commentator in "meltdown."
>>
>>No I consider long, rambling and disjointed paragraphs or meaningless
>>buzzwords to be screed.
>
> That's the majority of eddy's work.
>
>
>>I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing your
>>rag when you don't get your own way.
>
>
> and Eddy does go into frenzies.
>
Frenzies are funny :) As a kookologist, the most intriguing part is that
last straw that tips the subject kook from 'normal' behaviour into full
bore meltdown.
>>>Finally, after years and years of
>>>you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
>>>(i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
>>>bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
>>
>>Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
>>accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
>
>
> Gosh he started with a blanket judgement and ad hominem attack?
I was shocked too :)
>>>Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
>>>answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
>>>person is a kook.
>>
>>But if the reason for not understanding is because the other person is
>>writing long winded incoherent screed?
>
>
> One of the things I look for is construction of thoughts. While I am not a
> good writer, I can read. Ed often introduces a thought in the 1st line,
> makes an assumption in the second line without any support, and then
> contradicts the introduction in the third line, tearing down his
> introduction idea. (the act being of self contradicting)
By disposition I am a lousy writer. I know where I'm going with a
thought but sometimes don't elaborate enough for someone to follow it. I
find breaking up things into short sentences helps. And lots of editing
of course.
I guess the world will never know what Eddy the Wonderkook's Message was
because he is incapable of writing it in plain English.
>>And that is exactly what you do. Not once, but repeatedly.
>
>
> Exactly. Like his "positive and negative being balanced, and then because
> of this balanced it is positive." Just plain silly. And then there is his
> twistology...
>
> Twistology example: for years before his book was published Eddy had a
> screed he published on the net, he state that Edmund Halley discovered
> Arcturus, a very bright star. How he lifted the words out of Burnham's and
> mangled the information. What Edmund Halley did discover was the proper
> motion of Arcturus. Until then his discovery stars were considered fixed
> and unmoving. This discovery actually removed one of the so called pillars
> which astrology is based upon. The Stars are unchanging. The other pillar
> which astrologers base that claim is the hermetic principle, "as above, so
> below", which has never been proven and often shown to be incorrect in
> total.
>
> Anyway, Eddy refused to correct the error in his screed and so the error
> (one among many) made its way into his book.
>
>
>>It's so hard to figure why people you a kook what with the canned
>>screed, netcopping, hypocrisy and other abuses you perpetrate.
>
>
> Did you missed seeing Eddy's own "page of hate"? For some reason he was
> forced to remove said page by his provider.
>
Do you have an URL to where it was? Perhaps it is still on archive.org?
>>Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
>>
>>"The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
>>paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the conjunction
>>of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted - the adjunct of
>>preceding events to polar North and healing effects of magnetic North
>>combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
>>base of Uranus."
>>
>>Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
>>incompetent.
>
>
> Is this contest open to everyone?
>
It sure is. The first prize is a weekend away at a secluded desert
castle with private airstrip :)
>>>So, I have devised
>>>a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
>>>perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
>>>daddy's computer:
>>
>>I don't care who you think I am Eddy.
>
>
> Maybe you'll make pope one day...
>
Fuck I hope not! I have money riding at 4-1 odds that Cardinal Arinze
will win!
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:4076CF3D...@invalid.com:
No brainer. (Is *that* redundant in Pantyhead's case or what?)
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
"You will lose your ass when I sue you fraud. I have never plagiarized
anything." - Edmo, caught red-handed again, adds to the Lawsuit List.
Daedalus
wrote:
>Daedalus <jad...@sasquatchiswatchingyou.com> wrote in message news:<pmn870plq5qkci72t...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
>> <arctur...@earthlink.net>, wrote:
>
>> >Notable repost from June 1996-
>
>> >Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> >> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
>> >> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
>> >> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
>> >> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
>
>> >Paul Schlyter wrote;
>
>> >> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
>> >> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
>> >> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
>> >> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
>> >> you "right", but through a circular definition.
>
>> >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>> >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
>> >of the horoscope.
>
>> Strawman - The horoscope has no scientific basis. Delineation of a non
>> scientific idea is therefore itself unscientific and no repeatable
>> results can be assumed.
>
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You don't know how to read English, do you stupid?
Or you don't WANT to.
Jade
Clave
> Daedalus <jad...@sasquatchiswatchingyou.com> wrote in message
news:<pmn870plq5qkci72t...@4ax.com>...
<...>
> > Strawman - The horoscope has no scientific basis. Delineation of a non
> > scientific idea is therefore itself unscientific and no repeatable
> > results can be assumed.
>
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
This is fun!
Jim
Bookman
news:<c5342...@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Nor have I lost an argument ever.
>
> > Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose. Big
> > time.
>
> I see, where's the evidence?
Self-evident to everyone but you, Edddieee.
<Snip>
> > I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing your
> > rag when you don't get your own way.
>
> No one cares what you think.
I do, Eddiieee. He's obviously smarter than you, too.
>
> > > Finally, after years and years of
> > > you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
> > > (i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
> > > bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
>
> > Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
> > accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
>
> No, you spinics started it 7 years ago by labling me a kook simply
> because my level of intelligence is so high and my knowledge of many
> subjects you have NO knowledge of so coherent and comprehensive that
> you had no other way to deal with me.
Your klame that you are "too intelligent to be understood"
is an oxymoron, Edddiieee. The essence of genius is simplicity,
and you wallow in complexity. QED
<Shear>
>> As you can see usefulness is all about context. While you might think
>> you are 'useful', most of us think you are a parasite and a conman. And
>> a kook.
>As you can see, all you infants can come up with is defective ad
>hominems and name calling.
Irony Meter
[..........]/
Meanwhile, how's about all your threats?
> > Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
>
> > "The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
> > paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the conjunction
> > of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted - the adjunct of
> > preceding events to polar North and healing effects of magnetic North
> > combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
> > base of Uranus."
>
> Absolutely nothing,
Wrong. He is clearly telling you that you have your head
up your ass, but he dressed it up in gibberish and technobabble.
Why couldn't your "towering intellect" grasp that?
> because you are just making a mishmash of words
> and saying that is what I write, when it isn't.
> This is what I write:
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
>
> Articles that you can barely follow, let alone ever hope to execute in
> your own world.
>
> > Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
> > incompetent.
>
> Jibberish.
Wrong.
> Case closed.
Yep, with the verdict that you are a K0ok, Edddiieee!
Figure out what "plagiarism" is yet, Edddiieee?
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Un-Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
We're not laughing _with_ bRay!
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Namer of the 10-gallon Creel
Keeper of the Nickname List
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Clave
news:<Xns94C4EBC...@195.228.240.20>...
> > Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40744E...@earthlink.net:
>
> > > Notable repost from June 1996-
>
> > [flush]
>
> > > Spinic=[slap]
>
> > Someone who doesn't believe the Wollkook's crap.
>
> "KOOK"=someone who disagrees with spinics.
Something you don't seem to get, Ed, is that for a word to *be* a word, it has
to be used *seriously* by more than one person. Granted, others use "spinic" in
a serious sense, but only in the context of making serious fun of you.
Jim
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com:
Or anything that might bolster your specious claims, whines and lies.
When is Amazon going to sue me for hacking your book reviews like you
claimed, Eddieeeeeee?
>> >>You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
>> >>meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up
>> >>with numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
>
>> > I see. I have never run away from any argument--real
>> > argument--ever.
>
>> Yes you have all the time. Your weasel words demonstrate that you run
>> away like a baby from anything you consider to not be a "real
>> argument".
>
> Where's your real argument, and where's the evidence?
My real argument is that PF Chang's is still doing a kickass business on
La Jolla Village Dr. despite your claims it closed 4 years ago, you
fr00tl00p.
>> > Nor have I lost an argument ever.
>
>> Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose.
>> Big time.
>
> I see, where's the evidence?
Look at my X-Headers, dumbfuck.
>> > You consider long paragraphs
>> > "meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
>> > writer or commentator in "meltdown."
>
>> No I consider long, rambling and disjointed paragraphs or meaningless
>> buzzwords to be screed.
>
> You mean like the one you have at the end of this disjointed and
> fallacious post?
No, like your repeated screeds, fucknose.
>> I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing
>> your rag when you don't get your own way.
>
> No one cares what you think.
Even fewer care about what you think, at least seriously. All you are is
a laughingstock in Usenet, life and the academic world.
>> > Finally, after years and years of
>> > you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different
>> > result (i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste
>> > of bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
>
>> Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned
>> screed accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
>
> No, you spinics started it 7 years ago by labling me a kook simply
> because my level of intelligence is so high and my knowledge of many
> subjects you have NO knowledge of so coherent and comprehensive that
> you had no other way to deal with me.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you're a scumbag,
Pantyhead.
>> > Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
>> > think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass
>> > me and call me a kook.
>
>> How did you quantify this 4? I'm sure if someone were to dig up the
>> AUK votes we would see you gain substantially more than that.
>
> Look at the archives, there have been (for 7 years now) about 4-5
> persistent harassers saying the same thing, using the same fallacies
> and tactics all that time--no one pays attention to you idiots anymore
> because of the profound predictability, but EVERYONE still pays
> attention to me. YOU all are the kooks, and insane for trying the same
> tactics long after everyone else has moved on from being bored to
> tears.
Edmo! You get new fans all the time. YOu ensure that by simply posting
your screeds to various froups where they're unwanted, unneeded and
certainly not on topic, you fucking dipshit.
>> Or are you suggesting that your votes and all your detractors
>> (including the sample found in this thread) are all sockpuppets?
>
> They are all FAKE identities, they may very well be sockpuppets as
> well.
All of them? No wonder PEAT, Kettler and you had so much trouble finding
out where the heck I am. YOu guys are fucking idiots. I'm listed in the
phone book, asswipe.
> Or is your birthname "Cardinal Chunder"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!
Whatever you say, Mr. Simak.
>> > I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
>> > helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
>> > outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
>
>> "I have raped hundreds of women and my work is useful because they
>> are all bitches and god told me to do it."
>
> "Weak Analogy" affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument
> from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends upon the
> existence of an analogy or similarity, between two things or
> situations. Weak analogy fallacies are committed when the analogy is
> not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
> Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
> Entity B has attributes a, b, c,.
> Therefore entity B probably has attribute z also.
No, but keep going on with this little hissy fit. I'll be sure to send it
to Tony "with the baloney" Sidaway the next time he wants to debate "red
stucco".
> We would go through an evaluation process to determine the
> correlations between these two ideas in order for it to be a strong
> analogy. But since the analogy you use has NO similar attributes
> (which you of course cannot know since you committed the first
> fallacies to begin with), there is no reason to even consider such a
> test. Therefore your imagined causal connection could be grounds for
> another fallacy-but I'll let that one go-I think we have enough.
OK, let's just say you're a delusional liar and have done with it,
asshole.
>> As you can see usefulness is all about context. While you might think
>> you are 'useful', most of us think you are a parasite and a conman.
>> And a kook.
>
> As you can see, all you infants can come up with is defective ad
> hominems and name calling.
We've gotta talk about your medications sometime, Ed.
>> But anyhow. Since you grossly underestimate how many people know you
>> are a kook you must also grossly overesstimate the number of clients
>> you have. So if we were to apply your 'outweigh' logic, the number of
>
> How could you possibly know how many clients I have?
It sure won't be by taking the word of a lying douchebag like you.
> You freaks try to
> pass your garbage off on me and you get NOWHERE.
Whatever you say, Mr. Unaffected.
> Anyone can look at
> the archives and see for themselves the REPEATED same crap from you
> obsessed freaks for 7 years now, they can also see me defeating you
> for those 7 years.
Delusions noted.
>> detractors (including past clients) greatly outweighs the rubes you
>> have managed to scam.
>
> Evidence, where's your evidence, spinic?
Thank you for admitting you scam people, fucktard!
>> So by your own admission you are a kook.
>
> Straw man fallacy= Fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets
> an opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
> demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then concludes that the
> original argument has been demolished. "A Concise Introduction to
> Logic", Hurley, 1991.
Screed noted.
>> > I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the
>> > kooks.
>
>> There is one kook under discussion in this thread. So you will
>> explain how the sum total of your detractors can be less than 1.
>
> I am not discussing one KOOK I am discussing all of you spinic KOOKs.
Thank you for the gift of .sig material.
>> > Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
>> > answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
>> > person is a kook.
>
>> But if the reason for not understanding is because the other person
>> is writing long winded incoherent screed?
>
> What is a dispositor in astrology?
It's a load of shit based on another load of shit.
> See, you don't know, now calling
> someone names because of your own lack of diligence in educating
> yourself is NOT evidence that their posts are "long winded incoherent
> screed".
Ed, a faulty premise that is based on another one isn't any more valid.
All that a "dispositor" means is that it's another "fudge factor" based
on some rather doubtful beliefs.
>> And that is exactly what you do. Not once, but repeatedly.
>
> Because you fail REPEATEDLY to educate yourself in the topic under
> discussion in an ASTROLOGY or PARANORMAL group--that is YOUR defect,
> not mine.
I've heard quite enough of your lies, evasions and delusions to come to
the conclusion that you're a fucking kook. It didn't take Kepler very
long at all either, but they had loads of help. <snicker>
>> It's so hard to figure why people you a kook what with the canned
>> screed, netcopping, hypocrisy and other abuses you perpetrate.
>
> And you say my posts are incoherent? Bwahahahahahahahahahahh!
He left out the word "think" in the sentence. You've left out that word
your whole life, freak.
>> > It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy.
>
>> I see. So everyone is incompetent because you bugger the English
>> language into indecipherable treatises?
>
> I was on the Dean's list at SDSU and scored 11 out of 12 points on the
> upper division writing exams punk,
Not like that you didn't! Comma abuse noted.
Here! Have a few on me:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I have no rpoblem conveying
> concepts or anything else.
SNARF! That's why the FTC refuses your email whines.
>> Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
>
>> "The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
>> paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the
>> conjunction of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted -
>> the adjunct of preceding events to polar North and healing effects of
>> magnetic North combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural
>> poly priapism in the base of Uranus."
>
> Absolutely nothing, because you are just making a mishmash of words
> and saying that is what I write, when it isn't.
He never claimed you wrote that.
> This is what I write:
> http://www.astrocons[slap!]
Here's some original thoughts from you:
> Articles that you can barely follow, let alone ever hope to execute in
> your own world.
Admission of incoherence noted.
>> Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
>> incompetent.
>
> Jibberish.
> Case closed.
Defeat noted.
>> > So, I have devised
>> > a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
>> > perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old
>> > abusing daddy's computer:
>
>> I don't care who you think I am Eddy.
>
> My name is Edmond to you sonny, and it is YOU who are obscure and
> insignificant, primarily because you cannot raise your consciousness
> out of the swine trough long enough to allow some learning in.
I thought you said the case was closed, liar?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official Slapper of Spamming Mary the Drama Queen. Meow.
" I have already laid the foundation that there is no one truth,
therefore, there can be no "right or wrong" in universal terms" -Ed
Wollmann, sociopath and hypocrite.
wollma...@spam.free
http://www.nocem.org/
http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer01815
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<35325a08.04040...@posting.google.com> alt.astrology
alt.alien.visitors alt.alien.research alt.paranormal alt.fan.art-bell
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQHcS+lIcW5ONdL49EQLG2wCg37hEmYdhmNVKN9wX/Tt7kS6xE1sAoIbO
MydjtMow5YaUhyTf1y/sExtW
=wycg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
el...@no.spam
>"KOOK"=someone who disagrees with spinics.
Wollmann=uses sailboat fuel for brains!
Chris Krolczyk
> > Whiner.
>
> One worder.
Whooooo! Waht an INSLUT!!1!!
Brevity never was your strong suit, Edmo.
Now whine for us some more.
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> "Mr. 4X" <rando...@wdme.invalid.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94C4EBC...@195.228.240.20>...
> > > Spinic=[slap]
>
> > Someone who doesn't believe the Wollkook's crap.
>
> "KOOK"=someone who disagrees with spinics.
AUK begs to differ, Edmo. The NG predates your
sorry arrival (1) on Usenet by several years,
and even by their broad standards you're the
Y2Kook.
(1) I vote to make the anniversary of
Edmo's first screed "Bizarro Professor
of Astrology Day". Any takers?
-Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message news:<7bh9705fdskec3uah...@4ax.com>...
> > Dear Eddie,
>
> > Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are cordially invited
> > to blow me at your earliest convenience, DickHead.
>
> Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
Very well, Edmo.
Please refrain from using the word "ethics", "ethical",
"ethos", "morality" or "moral" from any of your
subsequent posts. After all, you have "no knowledge"
of such concepts, so you can't *write* about them.
-Chris Krolczyk
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c5342...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<c4ttt...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Then why quote the Bible then numbnuts?
>
>
> Any idea that conveys the truth of any matter is "what I use."
There is "truth" and then there is truth. You are definitely the latter.
>>>>You are simply someone who runs away from difficult questions, has
>>>>meltdowns, netcops and after years & years of this, well... ends up with
>>>>numerous AUK awards and plaudits.
>
>
>>>I see. I have never run away from any argument--real argument--ever.
>
>>Yes you have all the time. Your weasel words demonstrate that you run
>>away like a baby from anything you consider to not be a "real argument".
>
>
> Where's your real argument, and where's the evidence?
>
>
>>>Nor have I lost an argument ever.
>
>
>
>>Not in your mind perhaps, but to everyone else it is clear you lose. Big
>>time.
>
>
> I see, where's the evidence?
Tell me about the allegory of the cave. I hear you wrote a blistering
essay all by yourself.
>>>You consider long paragraphs
>>>"meltdowns", which is complete non-sense and would make every great
>>>writer or commentator in "meltdown."
>
>
>
>>No I consider long, rambling and disjointed paragraphs or meaningless
>>buzzwords to be screed.
>
> You mean like the one you have at the end of this disjointed and
> fallacious post?
What buzzwords would they be kook?
>>I consider meltdowns to be frenzied netcopping or otherwise losing your
>>rag when you don't get your own way.
>
>
> No one cares what you think.
>
I don't care if no one cares. I might argue my point but I'll admit if
I'm wrong.
Do you?
>>>Finally, after years and years of
>>>you kooks doing the same denigration and expecting a different result
>>>(i.e., that I might actually fall for your infantile waste of
>>>bandwidth), it is quite clear who is insane and who is a kook.
>
>
>
>>Who is denigrating who? You started this thread by posting canned screed
>>accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being a 'spinic'.
>
>
> No, you spinics started it 7 years ago by labling me a kook simply
> because my level of intelligence is so high and my knowledge of many
> subjects you have NO knowledge of so coherent and comprehensive that
> you had no other way to deal with me.
You are incomprehensible. If you think otherwise, feel free to conduct a
poll on the matter. Summon all your kook powerz and rally a powerful
defence of your workz! But please let us know in advance so we can
laugh at the aftermath.
As for your intelligence, I have yet to see any evidence that you are
anything but a college drop out. If you think otherwise or have
qualifications of any kind, please supply them for inspection.
>>>Now, there are about 4 of you--out of millions on the internet--who
>>>think your awards have some merit and consistently hound and harass me
>>>and call me a kook.
>
>
>
>>How did you quantify this 4? I'm sure if someone were to dig up the AUK
>>votes we would see you gain substantially more than that.
>
>
> Look at the archives, there have been (for 7 years now) about 4-5
> persistent harassers saying the same thing, using the same fallacies
> and tactics all that time--no one pays attention to you idiots anymore
> because of the profound predictability, but EVERYONE still pays
> attention to me. YOU all are the kooks, and insane for trying the same
> tactics long after everyone else has moved on from being bored to
> tears.
Am I one of these 4-5 persistent harassers?
As for paying attention to you, of course people do but only because you
are so easy to provoke a reaction from. It's like poking a caged animal
but without the guilt.
>>Or are you suggesting that your votes and all your detractors (including
>>the sample found in this thread) are all sockpuppets?
>
>
> They are all FAKE identities, they may very well be sockpuppets as
> well.
> Or is your birthname "Cardinal Chunder"? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!
Why do you care who I am? Perhaps you should accuse me of being one of
these 4 or 5 'detractors'.
>>>I have hundreds of clients who believe I have
>>>helped them and that my work is useful as a service. That number
>>>outweighs a few nutcases on usenet.
>
>
>
>>"I have raped hundreds of women and my work is useful because they are
>>all bitches and god told me to do it."
>
>
> "Weak Analogy" affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument
> from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends upon the
> existence of an analogy or similarity, between two things or
> situations. Weak analogy fallacies are committed when the analogy is
> not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
> Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
> Entity B has attributes a, b, c,.
> Therefore entity B probably has attribute z also.
>
> We would go through an evaluation process to determine the
> correlations between these two ideas in order for it to be a strong
> analogy. But since the analogy you use has NO similar attributes
> (which you of course cannot know since you committed the first
> fallacies to begin with), there is no reason to even consider such a
> test. Therefore your imagined causal connection could be grounds for
> another fallacy-but I'll let that one go-I think we have enough.
So to summarise. In 10 times as many words as required your think I made
a weak analogy? Unfortunately you are wrong.
>>As you can see usefulness is all about context. While you might think
>>you are 'useful', most of us think you are a parasite and a conman. And
>>a kook.
>
>
> As you can see, all you infants can come up with is defective ad
> hominems and name calling.
You started this very thread whining about 'spinics'. So you are a
hypocrite.
>>But anyhow. Since you grossly underestimate how many people know you are
>>a kook you must also grossly overestimate the number of clients you
>>have. So if we were to apply your 'outweigh' logic, the number of
>
>
> How could you possibly know how many clients I have?
And how can you possibly know how many 'detractors' you have?
You whipped the figure 4 out of your ass. Since you grossly
underestimated your 'detractors', I shall assume until evidence to the
contrary arrives that you also overestimate your clients too.
> You freaks try to
> pass your garbage off on me and you get NOWHERE. Anyone can look at
> the archives and see for themselves the REPEATED same crap from you
> obsessed freaks for 7 years now, they can also see me defeating you
> for those 7 years.
I know for certain that I was not posting about you seven years ago. If
you think otherwise, supply some evidence. But maybe I was. After all
you accused me of being 15 the other day so perhaps I started posting at
the age of 8!
As for 'us' being defeated I think your status as pariah, living joke
and comical entertainment would suggest otherwise.
>>detractors (including past clients) greatly outweighs the rubes you have
>>managed to scam.
>
>
> Evidence, where's your evidence, spinic?
>
>
>>So by your own admission you are a kook.
>
>
> Straw man fallacy= Fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets
> an opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
> demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then concludes that the
> original argument has been demolished. "A Concise Introduction to
> Logic", Hurley, 1991.
But it was your own argument. It was your own stupid reasoning that I
simply turned around on you.
>>>I've got news for you, you are in the minority and you are the kooks.
>
>
>
>>There is one kook under discussion in this thread. So you will explain
>>how the sum total of your detractors can be less than 1.
>
>
> I am not discussing one KOOK I am discussing all of you spinic KOOKs.
But you admit that there are less than one of us?
>>>Now, simply because you cannot understand the topic or person that
>>>answers your posts is NOT, I repeat, NOT evidence that the other
>>>person is a kook.
>
>
>
>>But if the reason for not understanding is because the other person is
>>writing long winded incoherent screed?
>
>
> What is a dispositor in astrology? See, you don't know, now calling
> someone names because of your own lack of diligence in educating
> yourself is NOT evidence that their posts are "long winded incoherent
> screed".
dispositor
\Dis*pos"it*or\, n. [L. See Disposition.] 1. A disposer.
2. (Astrol.) The planet which is lord of the sign where another planet
is. [Obs.] --Crabb.
Big fucking deal.
You will of course indicate how that demonstrates you don't write
incoherent screed.
It's funny but I've read dozens of books. Carl Sagan takes me to the
edge of the Universe. Bill Bryson paints such a vivid picture of
Australia that you could almost be standing there. I have stood on the
Berlin Wall waiting for my agent to return thanks to John Le Carre. I
have seen the last days of the Fourth Reich with William Shirer. I
recall dozens of authors who have taken me to places and times just with
the power of their words.
Whereas you just produce incoherent canned screed. The only thing your
words produce is a headache.
>>And that is exactly what you do. Not once, but repeatedly.
>
>
> Because you fail REPEATEDLY to educate yourself in the topic under
> discussion in an ASTROLOGY or PARANORMAL group--that is YOUR defect,
> not mine.
>
>
>>It's so hard to figure why people you a kook what with the canned
>>screed, netcopping, hypocrisy and other abuses you perpetrate.
>
>
> And you say my posts are incoherent? Bwahahahahahahahahahahh!
Yes they are.
>>>It is only evidence however, of your incompetancy.
>
>
>
>>I see. So everyone is incompetent because you bugger the English
>>language into indecipherable treatises?
>
>
> I was on the Dean's list at SDSU and scored 11 out of 12 points on the
> upper division writing exams punk, I have no rpoblem conveying
> concepts or anything else.
You certainly do.
>>Perhaps you will explain to me what I mean here:
>
>
>
>>"The colostomial precession in the obverse denotes that the ascendant
>>paradigm - metaphysical and otherwise - concludes with the conjunction
>>of five modes of duality but conversely - as was noted - the adjunct of
>>preceding events to polar North and healing effects of magnetic North
>>combine with a reverse plurality in the extramural poly priapism in the
>>base of Uranus."
>
>
> Absolutely nothing, because you are just making a mishmash of words
> and saying that is what I write, when it isn't.
I didn't claim you write like that. I simply asked you to explain the
meaning of what I wrote. Since you did not and said it meant 'absolutely
nothing', you are obviously incompetent by your own kook logic.
> This is what I write:
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
>
> Articles that you can barely follow, let alone ever hope to execute in
> your own world.
I live in the real world Eddy.
>>Give me a clear explanation of what I just wrote or you admit you are
>>incompetent.
>
>
> Jibberish.
> Case closed.
>
>
>>>So, I have devised
>>>a challenge for you, if you can pass this test I will consider that
>>>perhaps YOU are not a kook, or at the very least a 15 year old abusing
>>>daddy's computer:
>
>
>
>>I don't care who you think I am Eddy.
>
> My name is Edmond to you sonny, and it is YOU who are obscure and
> insignificant, primarily because you cannot raise your consciousness
> out of the swine trough long enough to allow some learning in.
Thanks for the heads up Eddy, High Uber Kook of the Shriveled Trouser
Snake, Lord Usurper of the Pantaloon, Chief Council of the Impotent.
We exalt you oh powerless one! Lord of Zero! Chief of the incoherent
Verbiage! If only the floor were lower that we could prostrate before
you more!
Cardinal Chunder
> There is "truth" and then there is truth. You are definitely the latter.
LOL and of course I meant the former here.
Cardinal Chunder
> have seen the last days of the Fourth Reich with William Shirer. I
Jesus I'm having to correct myself tonight - Third Reich. Bad Cardinal!
John Griffin
> "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net>
> wrote
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 18:53:42 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
>> <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> >Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>> >Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics
>> >of delineation of the horoscope.
>
>> Dear Eddie,
>
>> Asstrology is a joke, and you fell for it. You are
>> cordially invited to blow me at your earliest convenience,
>> DickHead.
>
> Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not
> possible. This is called the "Fallacy of suppressed
> evidence"
The fallacy of nonexistent evidence being described as
"suppressed." There is absolutely no evidence that astrology is
something more than a joke, except in the hands of a fraud,
where it's a way to rip off senile old ladies and other
desperate fools.
> [snipped irrelevant stuff that Wollman copied from somewhere]
> Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Duh. Believing something in the absence of evidence is evidence
of stupidity.
> This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to
> ignorance" (Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises
> state that nothing has BEEN PROVED one way or the other
> about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite
> assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an appeal
> to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
> incapable of being proved. (At least at the present
> moment). Example:
>
> "People have been trying for centuries to provide
> conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one
> has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that
> astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
> University of San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, page
> 128, "Informal Fallacies".
Actually, we can logically conclude that people who cling to an
unreserved belief in astrology without any evidence are fools.
"Astromancy" is a much better description of your primitive
superstition. It goes better with other crazy notions such as
numeromancy (arithmomancy), necromancy, etc., because the term
acknowledges the fact that it appeals to "magic," as opposed to
study. Of course, adamancy is your biggest problem. You believe
the nonsense you want to believe without any consideration of
anything related to evidence.
>
< Edmond H. Wollmann Snake Oil Drummer