A Challenge to Lazzwaldo AKA anonym or whatever it is
Rick
In article <35453C...@earthlink.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I got a deal for you.
>I got a deal for you. You can do what ever you want. I am not told,
>ordered, bargained, or manipulated into anything I don't have to do.
>I have not lied and have to prove nothing.
That's very strong support for the contention that you are lying about
having a degree.
>What's your name?
That's still irrelevant Edie. It is you that claims to have a degree. He
doesn't claim to have a name.
>What sort of an idiot thinks they can ask me all sorts
>of personal questions day in and day out and accuse me of personal
>things while they don't even give their name?
What kind of idiot claims to have a degree in psychology but refuses
to say where he got it? What kind of idiot lies about having a
degree?
>Can't you see how
>ludicrous that is?
We can all see how ludicrous you are acting.
>I have been more than forthcoming about many things.
So why not about your "degree" unless you are lying? It's not
like you haven't been caught lying before. So here's your big
chance to show you aren't lying or to retract your lie. Be a
man Edie.
--
"I cannot enjoy usenet isn't there SOMEONE who can control this crap!?"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
JeffMo
el...@no.spam (Rick) wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> <one level of attribution missing>
>>> I got a deal for you.
>>What sort of an idiot thinks they can ask me all sorts
>>of personal questions day in and day out and accuse me of personal
>>things while they don't even give their name?
>What kind of idiot claims to have a degree in psychology but refuses
>to say where he got it? What kind of idiot lies about having a
>degree?
And don't forget that he's characterizing "Where did you get your
degree?" as a personal question, after posting the claim on his
website!
<sarcasm>
I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
Which one? That's personal, dammit!
</sarcasm>
JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
> </sarcasm>
Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> JeffMo wrote:
>
> > I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
> > Which one? That's personal, dammit!
> > </sarcasm>
>
> Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
Ed, how come you're responding to him? He obviously doesn't recognize
your so-called "authority"!
How is Lili?
Dr. John
Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>JeffMo wrote:
>
>> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
>> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
>> </sarcasm>
>
>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
>--
That's a cheeky answer to be making to a Prime Minister.
John C. Kalinowski
Wollmann posted:
>JeffMo wrote:
>> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
>> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
>> </sarcasm>
>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful >spinic.
--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
ED,
How dare you insult zee Prime Minister? I will swear out
arrest extradition and toast your puny balls for this! Your
tough hoodlum biker background doing the Choke, Stroke, and
swallow behind a La Jolla Biker bar does not scare me!
Chief Inspector Clouseau
Surete
Sur la Plage
Rick
>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
So what do you do when you aren't spewing hate Edie?
--
"now get out and shut up."
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>JeffMo wrote:
>> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
>> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
>> </sarcasm>
>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
raised."
To Ed: I can understand your reluctance to provide information about
your degree if it is not relevant to astrology. You may be harboring
some fear of negative comments based on the nature of your degree or
perhaps the lack of prestige associated with the institution which
granted said degree, or maybe you have other fears of a more personal
nature. I don't really know, do I? But in any case, if you can't or
won't reveal the nature of your degree, it might just be better to
remove that claim from the website and/or your company literature.
You see, most people will interpret your secretive approach as a sign
that you lack truthfulness; this is just part of the psychological
makeup of the human animal (as I'm sure you are aware). This
perceived lack of truthfulness could hinder you in your chosen
profession, so better to say nothing about an irrelevant degree (or
whatever the problem may be) than to claim it and then disown it.
Just a suggestion to you, nothing more, nothing less.
JeffMo
p.s. Regarding "weak minded [sic]": You made my day! :-)
JeffMo
anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> JeffMo wrote:
>>
>> > I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
>> > Which one? That's personal, dammit!
>> > </sarcasm>
>>
>> Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
>Ed, how come you're responding to him? He obviously doesn't recognize
>your so-called "authority"!
Thanks, anonym, but it's OK. Ed can respond to me any time, and I
forgave that crack above as soon as I read it. In fact, it made me
smile! :)
(I presume you're referring to some inconsistency with a past
statement of Ed's? I'm guessing here, going by context clues, but
it's OK with me if he wants to talk to me, if he thinks it might do
some good.)
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >JeffMo wrote:
> >> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
> >> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
> >> </sarcasm>
> >Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
> raised."
I don't have to do anything and am probably one of the few who can fully
explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-and will quite powerfully
do so in the next year.
> To Ed: I can understand your reluctance to provide information about
> your degree if it is not relevant to astrology. You may be harboring
> some fear of negative comments based on the nature of your degree or
> perhaps the lack of prestige associated with the institution which
> granted said degree, or maybe you have other fears of a more personal
> nature. I don't really know, do I? But in any case, if you can't or
> won't reveal the nature of your degree, it might just be better to
> remove that claim from the website and/or your company literature.
> You see, most people will interpret your secretive approach as a sign
> that you lack truthfulness; this is just part of the psychological
> makeup of the human animal (as I'm sure you are aware). This
> perceived lack of truthfulness could hinder you in your chosen
> profession, so better to say nothing about an irrelevant degree (or
> whatever the problem may be) than to claim it and then disown it.
> Just a suggestion to you, nothing more, nothing less.
> JeffMo
I stand by my degrees, and was also awarded superior academic
achievement awards at the institution where I received it. This
speculation about my being embarrassed etc. is simply more spin. My
clients and those who are not lowlife spin doctoring lying detractors
seeking to simply defame, are given any info they need to feel
comfortable with my 23 years of credible and professional service. There
will only be additions of degrees and credibility to my pages-not
retractions.
Jealous as you all may be, things will only get better for me as the
year progresses and I predict my jealous competitors and detractors will
have even more reason for this paranoic attempt to discredit the
credible, and down the undownable.
So choose your friends carefully and desires-for assuredly -you shall
have them and have to live with them.
Have a wonderful day!:-)
--
Arthur to Lancelot upon confrontation at the bridge;
"Your arrogance bores me! Draw your sword so that I may humble you and
your arrogant boasts and with one mighty blow of Excalibur send you into
the sea!
Lancelot: Your zeal blinds you to the truth! It is not a wild boast
sir-but a curse, for I have never been defeated in joust or duel and
seek a king worthy of my service as his humble knight."
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> JeffMo wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > >JeffMo wrote:
>
> > >> I'm the prime minister of a small European country.
> > >> Which one? That's personal, dammit!
> > >> </sarcasm>
>
> > >Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
>
> > Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
> > raised."
>
> I don't have to do anything
Except for make insulting ad hominems like " weak minded and vengeful
spinic" to someone who actually wrote a very light-hearted andclever
remark.
> and am probably one of the few who can fully
> explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
You have demonstrated absolutely no evidence for this probability, so
your statement will be discounted as the unsupported braggadoccio it is.
>and will quite powerfully
> do so in the next year.
Oh, just you wait, everybody! Post your credentials and get your stupid
book out, first, then worry about the rest of your asinine "assertions"
>
> I stand by my degrees,
Which ones? What kind? From where, exactly?
> and was also awarded superior academic
> achievement awards at the institution where I received it.
Prove it. Post them. Identify the "institution", and why you were
incarcerated, if such is the case.
> This
> speculation about my being embarrassed etc. is simply more spin.
Do you have another explanation for not simply revealing the name of
this institution?
>My
> clients and those who are not lowlife spin doctoring lying detractors
> seeking to simply defame, are given any info they need to feel
> comfortable with my 23 years of credible and professional service.
So long as the truth is not revealed. So, if am am to be your client,
you would give me the info I need? What's it take to become your client?
(shuddering at the thought) Anti-discrimination laws would forbid you
refusing me service.
>There
> will only be additions of degrees and credibility to my pages-not
> retractions.
Oh, well then, add on the information that substantiates your claims of
acheivement, instead of suspiciously hiding it.
>
> Jealous as you all may be, things will only get better for me as the
> year progresses
They could hardly get worse!
> and I predict
See? Fortune Teller! Illegal in San Diego, baby!
> my jealous competitors
You don't have any!
> and detractors
THAT you have a lot of!
>will
> have even more reason for this paranoic
"My jealous competitors and detractors are PARANOID"! THAT'S PRICELESS!
>attempt to discredit the credible,
This doesn't include you, the in-credible Wollmann.
>and down the undownable.
"undownable"? Is this another Wollmann-word™ like "spinic"?
> So choose your friends carefully and desires-for assuredly -you shall
> have them and have to live with them.
NOW you're talking some sense! Of course, what you just wrote in that
sentence is a trite, obvious platitude, but in terms of you talking any
sense at all, I should take what you can get.
> Have a wonderful day!:-)
Shit. Eddie just jinxed my day!
Edmond Wollmann
"A reassuring whisper
gives us strength to carry on;
a little flame that lights our way,
from dusk until dawn.
A steadfast friend,
always near when we feel alone,
gifting us with a guardian
angel all our own." Arcturus Kim Carlsberg & Darryl Anka, Bear &Co., 1996
ARCTURUS- A star in the constellation Bootes;"the lofty" one, the one who
rules, and the coming one by the Egyptians. This star is the center of many
solar systems and represents the distribution and flow of information
regarding agreements and contracts made by individuals in the higher state
of consciousness. Its energy reflects the idea of "the gatekeeper" that
allows and/or controls the flow of awareness to this system. The Chalice is
the recognition that "The King and the land are one in the same" (ARTHURIAN
philosophy), or "I and the father are one in the same" (Christian
philosophy). ARCTURUS represents the gatekeeper of the chalice. It is
approximately 24 degrees Libra at this time.
ARCTURUS. Bootis. - 23 Libra 7,.
Notes. A golden-yellow star situated on the Left
knee of Bootes. From Arktouros, the Bear Guard.
Also called AArctophilax, the Bear Watcher ; and
Alchameth, Azimech, and other variants of Al Simak,
the Lofty One. According to Bullinger Arcturus
means He Commeth, and was called Smat, One who
rules, and Bau, the Coming One, by the Egyptians.
The Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology, Vivian E. Robson Bsc,
Samuel Weiser, Ny, Ny, page 139.
Arcturus =known also as Alpha Bootis, an orange first magnitude star,
the brightest in the constellation Bootes. Arcturus is the 6th brightest
star in the sky
and is 35 light years from Earth. Its diameter is 35 times that of the sun
and an intrinsic
luminosity 80 times that of the sun, Discovered by Halley in 1718
Visual Magnitude 0.2, Spectral type K, distance in light years 35-36.
According to Burnham's Celestial Handbook (Vol I, p 302-3):
Arcturus is the brightest star in the northern sky and 4th brightest
over all. It was "formerly given 6th place, but shown by modern
measurements to outshine both Vega & Capella". Magnitude -0.06,
distance = about 37 LY, diameter = about 25 times greater than the sun,
luminosity = 115 times that of the sun, color = usually described as
topaz or golden yellow, occasionally as orange.
More interesting perhaps -- Arcturus has the largest proper motion
of any 1st magnitude stars with the exception of Alpha Centauri:
90 mps in the direction of Virgo. (This is what Halley detected in 1718).
"This motion has been bringing the star closer to the Earth ever since
it first became visible to the naked eye nearly half a million years
ago. At the present time, Arcturus is almost at its minimum distance
[showing] an approaching radial velocity of about 3 miles per second,
which will gradually diminish to zero as the star passes us several
thousand years from now".
It's a population II star, a member of the great spherical halo which is
centered on the galactic hub. "This explains the large apparent motion,
and the rapid passage though our part of the heavens; Arcturus is moving
in a highly inclined orbit around the center of the galaxy, and is
currently cutting through the galactic plane ...".
In response to a query of symbolic meaning to a dream (of EW) of EM1
Arcturus (horoscope), the distance between the bodies of the Sun and the
dark body that traverses our solar system in a very long trajectory
(counterpart nemesis to the sun), and the reflection represented of the
distance between our (perceived) conscious self and shadow self;
"You can recognize the electromagnetic vibration of Arcturus, to be the
higher vibratory resonance plane that contains both the polarities of the
bright star (sun) and the dark star (nemesis) represented in your system.
And that if you can simply focus on the fundamental vibrational frequency of
the tip of the triangle (Apex) you will then contain them both, and in
containing them both, you can shorten any distance you perceive between
them. For you are looking down-symbolically-from another plane of existence
altogether, when you look through the eyes of Arcturus.
A symbol that can be utilized that we have shared with many of you to help
you focus on the vibratory plane of Arcturus energy and consciousness-is a
white 12 pointed star, against an orange circle, against a black background.
Will this be of assistance?"
EW: "Yes, thank you."
March, 1987. "Southern Exposure"
el...@no.spam
In article <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
>> raised."
>I don't have to do anything
Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
>and am probably one of the few who can fully
>explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
Then why don't you?
>and will quite powerfully
>do so in the next year.
ROFL! Like last years "predictions"?
>I stand by my degrees,
Then why are you unwilling to disclose their nature?
>and was also awarded superior academic
>achievement awards at the institution
The "institution"? <snicker>
>where I received it.
So why can't you divulge what "institution" that was?
>This
>speculation about my being embarrassed etc. is simply more spin.
Bullshit. You can stop all this "spin" at any time by simple stating
where your degrees are from and what they are. But you choose not to
do so and then act like the poor little martyr that everyone is picking
on.
>My
>clients and those who are not lowlife spin doctoring lying detractors
>seeking to simply defame, are given any info they need to feel
>comfortable with my 23 years of credible and professional service.
Considering your history here one wonders what "info" they're
given. You hardly have shown a tendency towards honesty here.
>There
>will only be additions of degrees and credibility to my pages-not
>retractions.
We're waiting.
>Jealous as you all may be,
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
>things will only get better for me as the
>year progresses and I predict my jealous competitors and detractors will
>have even more reason for this paranoic attempt to discredit the
>credible, and down the undownable.
Translation: Edie will continue to bully and spam on Usenet.
>So choose your friends carefully and desires-for assuredly -you shall
>have them and have to live with them.
I have chosen carefully and you are not one of them.
>Have a wonderful day!:-)
Hypocrite!
--
"I cannot enjoy usenet isn't there SOMEONE who can control this crap!?"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
Edmond Wollmann
el...@no.spam wrote:
> In article <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>,
> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
> >> raised."
> >I don't have to do anything
> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some ad
hominem abusive statement about me?
> >and am probably one of the few who can fully
> >explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
> Then why don't you?
What don't you understand? Why don't you submit your birthdata-I will
quickly demonstrate you are NOT a complex psyche to understand.
> >and will quite powerfully
> >do so in the next year.
> ROFL! Like last years "predictions"?
Which were all accurate. What happened to your IDT account Rick?
> >I stand by my degrees,
> Then why are you unwilling to disclose their nature?
I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
student several times and have awards for superior academic performance
at the first college I attended as well. Both were state insitutions
(Colleges or Universities) I am on the Phd track in psychology at SDSU
and am now working on a third degree in Art. What are your
qualifications in astrology or psychology? I also have a professional
certification in astrology. What would you like to know in these areas?
Or is abusing newsgroups your only talent?
> >and was also awarded superior academic
> >achievement awards at the institution
> The "institution"? <snicker>
The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do instead
of real responses because they fear true and integral interaction. This
is because they fear they might be found out for the weak minded
insecure harrassers they are. I understand however why you cannot
refrain from harrassing someone like me. Because I challenge your
masculinity and prowess in many areas, you believe you must attack the
percieved threat so you can feel that it is being addressed. Really all
that is happening is your fears of impotence and insecurity with
efficacy are surfacing and you are challenging yourself. This is from
narcissistic inclinations. I suggest you start with small
accomplishments to build esteem and then move on to bigger-eventually
you will feel better and find your niche where perhaps you can serve.
Once this happens you will no longer feel threatened by me and perhaps
can accomplish something useful with your life.
SNIP!
--
"I paid my dues, time after time! I've done my sentence, but committed
no crime!.... I have my share of sand kicked in my face but I've come
through! We are the champions, we are the champions! No time for losers
cause we are the champions!!!!!!! Of the world!!!" Queen
el...@no.spam
In article <354988...@worldnett.att.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
>You are off topic,
Q.E.D.
>do you have anything you CAN address beside some ad
>hominem abusive statement about me?
Why don't you address the issues Edie? Your complaints about
"hominem abusive statement about me" are just another obvious
attempt by you to evade the question.
>> >and am probably one of the few who can fully
>> >explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
>
>> Then why don't you?
>What don't you understand?
Because I don't subscribe to your curious brand of "logic".
>Why don't you submit your birthdata-I will
>quickly demonstrate you are NOT a complex psyche to understand.
<yawn>
>> >and will quite powerfully
>> >do so in the next year.
>> ROFL! Like last years "predictions"?
>Which were all accurate. What happened to your IDT account Rick?
Accurate? They were incredibly vague. Even Turi is more specific.
>> >I stand by my degrees,
>> Then why are you unwilling to disclose their nature?
>I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
>student several times and have awards for superior academic performance
>at the first college I attended as well.
What college? Your evasion of this question has a major negative impact
on yuour credibility.
>Both were state insitutions
Patton is a "state insitution". You need to be more specific.
>(Colleges or Universities) I am on the Phd track in psychology at SDSU
In find no occurances of the word "track" in the graduate bulletin
for psychology at SDSU. Could you be more specific?
>and am now working on a third degree in Art.
What ever keeps you from the burden of a job.
>What are your
>qualifications in astrology or psychology?
That's quite irrelevant. I haven't claimed any such qualifications. You
have.
>I also have a professional
>certification in astrology.
Like I care.
>What would you like to know in these areas?
I'd like to know what degrees you have and where they are from.
>Or is abusing newsgroups your only talent?
Abusing your ego is only one of many talents. Is abusing Usenet yours?
--
"There are more ways to cancel posts than just by looking for the
evidence in Deja News"
John Davis
Edmond Wollmann <Alch...@email.msn.com> wrote:
: "A reassuring whisper
: gives us strength to carry on;
: a little flame that lights our way,
: from dusk until dawn.
: A steadfast friend,
: always near when we feel alone,
: gifting us with a guardian
: angel all our own." Arcturus Kim Carlsberg & Darryl Anka, Bear &Co., 1996
: ARCTURUS- A star in the constellation Bootes;"the lofty" one, the one who
: rules, and the coming one by the Egyptians. This star is the center of many
: solar systems and represents the distribution and flow of information
Fool, any star can be the center of only one "solar system" and all
"solar systems" can have only one star at their center. That is if you
concider that the solar system is a star (Sol) surounded by it's planets
and other local matter. There is in fact no evidence that Arcturus is
the center of any "solar system" because it is to far away for us to
determine if there is any local matter associated with it. I will
readyly agree that there probably is local matter associated with
Arcturus but it can't be shown that, that is indeed the fact.
Now there are binary and tercentenary star systems that may have
non-steallar local matter associated with them thus forming a complex
syatem, but they coudn't be trully called "solar systems" because the
solar system is a single star system thus simular stellar systems would
have a single star at their center.
Ed, it is obvious you know absolutly nothing about the solar system
or other stellar objects or systems. Stop coping data from encyclopedia
and playing like you understand what is being talked about. Arcturus,
indeed any star other than Sol, is to far away from the earth to have
any effect on the lives of earth's inhabitants. Even if a star went
supervova it woud have to be very close to have any real effect on earth.
--
A_A
John Davis (o o) Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) observed:
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Democritus maintains that there can be no great poet
without a spite of madness.
.murdoch.edu.au
In article <354988...@worldnett.att.net>, Pleia...@worldnett.att.net
says...
>
>e
>
>> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
>
>hominem abusive statement about me?
Is there anything you can argue logically about without drifting into dense
meta-babble or resorting to the above tactic?
>
>> >and am probably one of the few who can fully
>> >explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
>
>> Then why don't you?
>
>What don't you understand? Why don't you submit your birthdata-I will
>quickly demonstrate you are NOT a complex psyche to understand.
And you will be demonstrated how wrong astrology is in its predictions.
>
>> >and will quite powerfully
>> >do so in the next year.
>
>> ROFL! Like last years "predictions"?
>
>Which were all accurate.
Proof?
What happened to your IDT account Rick?
What happened to your AZNET and PACBELL accounts?
>
>> >I stand by my degrees,
>
>> Then why are you unwilling to disclose their nature?
>
>I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees,
I thought it was one. Anyway, you haven't even posted proof of your first
degree-how do you expect us to believe you have a second degree?
have been an honor
>student several times
How can you do honours several times? You only get one shot an an
honours-besides, I don't think you have had the time, nor the academic ability
to get several honours offers even with your (supposed) three degrees and a PhD
offering-the most chances you would have are three, and getting THREE honours
in three different areas is certainly beyond your ability and lifestyle when
you spend every day flaming on alt.astrology, 'writing' your imaginary book or
reading charts for clients...My hypothesis is you are simply a undergrad
student in psychology at SDSU, whose two main hobbies are astrology and
usenet...
and have awards for superior academic performance
Then show them. Set up a homepage at SDSU and scan the actual certifications
into the computer so we can see them.
>at the first college I attended as well.
Which was?
Both were state insitutions
>(Colleges or Universities) I am on the Phd track
Sure. You haven't even done honours yet-let alone completed the degree. How
do you propose to get a PhD? By bribing the professor?
in psychology at SDSU
>and am now working on a third degree in Art.
You keep piling those imaginary degrees up all the time, don't you Ed?
What are your
>qualifications in astrology or psychology? I also have a professional
>certification in astrology.
Then show it!
What would you like to know in these areas?
>Or is abusing newsgroups your only talent?
>
>> >and was also awarded superior academic
>> >achievement awards at the institution
>
>> The "institution"? <snicker>
>
<snip>
el...@no.spam
In article <3549EF...@earthlink.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>alt.usenet.kooks
Added because we are discussing a well known Kook of the Month.
>and sci.skeptic
Added because this involves astrology and should be view with
a skeptical eye.
>removed because Rick snuck them in to
>harrass othetr newsgroups as well.
Translation: Edie doesn't like those groups, especially
sci.skeptic which he fears.
>> In article <354988...@worldnett.att.net>,
>> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
>
>> >You are off topic,
>
>> Q.E.D.
>
>> >do you have anything you CAN address beside some ad
>> >hominem abusive statement about me?
>
>> Why don't you address the issues Edie?
>
>Which issue in astrology would you like to discuss or be taught?
>> Your complaints about
>> "hominem abusive statement about me" are just another obvious
>> attempt by you to evade the question.
>No, [sic] its just another accurate discernment of your abusive harrassment.
No, it's just more of your bullshit "debating" technique. You know, the
one that involves never answering a question and making every attempt
you possibly can to change the subject rather than admit being wrong.
>Which astrological topic would you like to discuss?
Why do you continue to repeat that hypocritical question? You very well
know you have no intention of discussing astrology with me. Of course you
probably use a different definition of "discussing".
>> >> >and am probably one of the few who can fully
>> >> >explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-
>> >> Then why don't you?
>> >What don't you understand?
>> Because I don't subscribe to your curious brand of "logic".
>I said what do you not understand?
It isn't a matter of understanding. I am quite able to read your astro-babble
and see it for what it is. I have asked you again and again to support
your absurd premises and have either been ignored or attacked. This is a
sign of a kook that can't support his own view.
>Obviously you do not even read the
>question you are so absorbed into trying to demean me.
I don't have to "demean" you. I just point out where you are
"demeaning" yourself.
>Thats what these groups are for-astrology.
That doesn't mean I want you to do a worthless reading on me. We've been
discussing why astrology doesn't work not Edie's cold read technique. You
obviously don't like that topic and will do anything up to and including
throwing a tantrum to try to stop such discussion occurring on alt.astrology.
Too bad Usenet doesn't kiss your ass like you think it should.
>There are no inherently
>boring situations,
Only bores like you?
>only bored minds and individuals.
Prove it! Once again you make a curious statement that'll you'll no
doubt refuse to provide anything to back up.
>All situations are
>nuetral-devoid of meaning or thrust-YOU give them meaning by what you
>believe or are tauught to believe they mean. How does it serve you to
>create boredom?
How does it serve you to vomit forth new age psycho-babble?
>> >> >and will quite powerfully
>> >> >do so in the next year.
>> >> ROFL! Like last years "predictions"?
>> >Which were all accurate. What happened to your IDT account Rick?
>> Accurate? They were incredibly vague. Even Turi is more specific.
>I am not trying to prove astrology through predictions,
Then why do you make such worthless predictions?
>I make them
>available for those they may serve.
How can vague bullshit like that "serve" anybody?
>There is no prediction of "THE"
>future-because there is no "THE" future.
Translation: Edie has an out when his predictions fail.
>The future that anyone senses
>is the most LIKELY things to occur should the energy percieved by the
>insightful person not change.
Bullshit.
>Since we have total free will
Prove it.
>we can
>change any of these momentums at any given moment.
Always leave youself an out.
>It is how we
ncorporate and learn from the predictions that matters-not that they
>are accurate or that they are even predicted.
Leave yourself an even bigger out.
>Life will NEVER be 100%
>predictable BECAUSE we all have free will (please see my "Hallway"
>analogy).
Sounds like a great way to make your "clients" happy when you
fail.
>> >> >I stand by my degrees,
>> >> Then why are you unwilling to disclose their nature?
>> >I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
>> >student several times and have awards for superior academic performance
>> >at the first college I attended as well.
>> What college? Your evasion of this question has a major negative impact
>> on yuour credibility.
>Irrelevant.
Hardly.
>> >Both were state insitutions
>> Patton is a "state insitution". You need to be more specific.
>> >(Colleges or Universities) I am on the Phd track in psychology at SDSU
>> In find no occurances of the word "track" in the graduate bulletin
>> for psychology at SDSU. Could you be more specific?
>Irrelevent.
Bull. It is quite relevant to your credibility. The current discussion
has been revolving around your claims and like lack of support for them.
So where did you get your degrees and that is a PhD track at SDSU?
>I have a
>professional certification in that and 25 years experience.
So what? All that means is you are good at playing the astrology
parlor game.
>People pay $100 an hour now
All that means to me is you are good at being a con man.
>for it and my fees will go up soon-most would be
>delighted to be able to talk to me for free-why do you abuse this
>opportunity and try to interfere with others choice to do that if they
>wish?
And just how am I interfering with anybody's choice to talk to you?
You are free to ignore me since I don't keep changing my identity to
avoid kill files like you do.
>Are you so negative and ill that you cannot even allow others
>happiness and the pursuit of their own preferences without seeking to
>force your will upon them as individuals and a group?
You are such a laugh. You just can't help calling everyone that doesn't
see the world your way "ill" or worse. Grow up.
>> >and am now working on a third degree in Art.
>> What ever keeps you from the burden of a job.
>I have two businesses, if you don't understand that as a job, it is
>because you have all day to harrass people for their beliefs on usenet
>and teach best what you are learning.
Hypocrite! You seem to have plenty of time to harrass people Edie.
>> >What are your
>> >qualifications in astrology or psychology?
>> That's quite irrelevant. I haven't claimed any such qualifications.
>Then you are only capable of being a beginning student here and should
>allow the teacher to teach you or ask questions relevent to the topic.
>Or should we send you to the principal?:-))
This isn't a school Edie and you aren't the teacher. Teachers don't
say things like "EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!" or "You spin doctoring piece of
crap".
You are just the local fool the believes himself to be king.
>> >I also have a professional
>> >certification in astrology.
>> Like I care.
>No one cares if you care.
Then why do you continue to brag about your silly certification?
>Then go do something you do care about and
>contribute something positive, this is what a mature adult with full
>working faculties would be doing. Like me.
Like you? ROFL! How can a cry baby be a mature adult?
> >What would you like to know in these areas?
>
>> I'd like to know what degrees you have and where they are from.
>Irrelevent.
Then we must assume your degrees are worthless since they are
"irrelevent[sic]".
>> >Or is abusing newsgroups your only talent?
>> Abusing your ego is only one of many talents. Is abusing Usenet yours?
>A fallacy is a defect in an argument,
But you abuse of usenet is no fallacy. It is a well documented fact and you
have lost many accounts for it.
>your statement contains only ad
>hominem abusive and missing the point fallacies.
Wrong again.
>Is that the logic you are making fun of?
Yep, and I still am.
>It is the accepted and taught version.
Wrong.
>Now what metaphysical or astrological topic would you like to discuss?
I'd like to discuss the degrees you claim to have. Where did you get
them? Someone here speculated you don't want to reveal anything about
them because you got one in prison. If this isn't true, wouldn't a
rational human want to end the rumor?
--
"I have defeated alll [sic] your arguments"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/lies/wollmann/edlies01.txt
Brant
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>...
<snip>
>I don't have to do anything and am probably one of the few who can fully
>explain and demonstrate all of my assertions-and will quite powerfully
>do so in the next year.
Oooo! That *power*! I could sense it...it made shivers run up and down my
spine.
In the next year, huh? Is that when you expect to get the degree you've been
claiming you've had all along?
Brant
Brant
Rick wrote in message <6i8qsr$1g0$1...@ellis.no.spam>...
>>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
>
>So what do you do when you aren't spewing hate Edie?
He trains falcons, writes music, ponders the manytruth of the multiverse, and
smashes beer bottles on his head.
Brant
Brant
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <354988...@worldnett.att.net>...
<snip>
>I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
>student several times and have awards for superior academic performance
>at the first college I attended as well. Both were state insitutions
>(Colleges or Universities) I am on the Phd track in psychology at SDSU
>and am now working on a third degree in Art.
I still find it curious that you have two psychology degrees and are
continuing post-graduate work while repeatedly expressing your reverence for
Freud and Jung, (specifically with respect to mystical archetypes and
astrology)?
>What are your
>qualifications in astrology or psychology? I also have a professional
>certification in astrology. What would you like to know in these areas?
>Or is abusing newsgroups your only talent?
Will you tell your dissertation panel that you are a professional astrologer?
Will they know how utterly antagonistic you are to rational inquiry?
Will they have an opportunity to see your smear-profile, which you bot-posted
to at least a dozen skeptics, claiming that it was the result of your highly
refined psychological insight? (Or was it astrological significators?) Will
they agree with your application of "pure perception?"
Will they have an opportunity to read some of your mystical babble?
>> >and was also awarded superior academic
>> >achievement awards at the institution
>
>> The "institution"? <snicker>
>
>The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do instead
>of real responses because they fear true and integral interaction. This
>is because they fear they might be found out for the weak minded
>insecure harrassers they are. I understand however why you cannot
>refrain from harrassing someone like me. Because I challenge your
>masculinity and prowess in many areas, you believe you must attack the
>percieved threat so you can feel that it is being addressed. Really all
>that is happening is your fears of impotence and insecurity with
>efficacy are surfacing and you are challenging yourself. This is from
>narcissistic inclinations. I suggest you start with small
>accomplishments to build esteem and then move on to bigger-eventually
>you will feel better and find your niche where perhaps you can serve.
>Once this happens you will no longer feel threatened by me and perhaps
>can accomplish something useful with your life.
Would they be interested, for example, in paragraphs like the preceding one?
I would think that most psychology departments would be quite concerned about
how you intend to use your credentials. Every time you have presumed to use
psychology on Usenet, it has either been an attempt to credify your personal
attacks on others, or an effort to unify it with astrology. Do many
universities award PhD's to people who have demonstrated this kind of abuse of
the discipline?
Brant
Brant
Brant wrote in message <6igmb0$o35$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
Oh darn, before I get blasted for making such a mistake, please allow me to
correct it. Ed *paints*...he's an artist. It was his *son*, the music prodigy,
who composes music. Sorry. I'm getting my geniuses mixed up.
Brant
anonym™
Brant wrote:
>
> Rick wrote in message <6i8qsr$1g0$1...@ellis.no.spam>...
> >>Oh look who's back, another weak minded and vengeful spinic.
> >
> >So what do you do when you aren't spewing hate Edie?
>
> He trains falcons,
The falcons say to each other" "Hey, this looks like an EXCELLENT place
to shit! Right on this guys' arm!"
> writes music,
Plays "Wings" tunes on an old Casiotone.
> ponders the manytruth of the multiverse
Struggles with many lies he will in a day.
> and
> smashes beer bottles on his head.
Now hold on. Don't you defame Edi that way. He doesn't do that himself;
he just talks and talks and goes on and on until someone gets so fuckin'
sick of him that THEY smash the beer bottle in HIS face, so that he can
explain to them why they did it.
But mostly he just jacks off a lot.
Hey, Ed. The challenge is still open! You tell us which specific school
or "intitution" granted you your alleged first degree, when, how long it
took to earn, and the address of the place so we can verify it; and if
it all turns out to be true, I'll go away from this newsgroup for a
year.
Whattya say?
How's Lili?
Terry Smith
> From: Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnett.att.net>
> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 01:32:20 -0700
> el...@no.spam wrote:
>
> In article <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>,
> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
> >> raised."
>
w> >I don't have to do anything
>
> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
w> You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some
You don't, and never will decide that here.
> I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
No-one here believes you, because it has been demonstrated many times that
you are a pathetic liar. I have studied psychology at Flinders University
as the second major in my Biology stream. My student number is 881639.
That is checkable and verifiable. I have seen nothing from you in all my
years on Usenet to suggest you have the slightest capabilites in any field
other than that of fraud and deceit.
> The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do
> instead of real responses because they fear true and integral
I note the lack of reference to Festinger's cognitive dissonance studies,
Tajfel's Intergroup discrimination findings, Coopersmith's studies in
self-esteem, and dear Solomon Asch surely deserves a bit of a hand-wave if
you are discussing opinions and peer pressure. [Though I guess `peer' is
something you'd need to travel to the Everglades to find]. On a more
chauvinistic note, a reference to your consideration of Leon Mann's work
in forming your assessment of Ellis's socio-psychological equilibrium
would have been nice.
You don't get it, do you, Ed.[rhet.] This is sci.skeptic. Many in here
have studied topics you claim to have competance in. When spew-age
charlatans like you claim expertise in `psychology', they generally profer
the works of non-scientific philosophers such as Jung and Freud - two men
whose work merely led to an industry based on unproven, oft-debunked warm
and fuzzy pseudo-scientific crap. You don't even do that, but merely
repeat your usual behaviour when caught in yet another lie - bluster,
insult, hype and threaten. Why bother? Anyone who has been here longer
than two weeks knows that your bluster is baseless, your insults
insignificant, your hype humorous and your threats toothless.
In all tertiary institutions that I have had dealing with, rampant abuse
and fraudulent use of the computer network would be a neccessary and
sufficient cause for termination of one's enrollment. Your spamming and
the loss of your accounts is a matter of record, and will _not_ go away.
Count yourself lucky that your employers clearly think your ability to
polish toilet-bowls isn't affected by your obvious and pitiful cognitive
defects.
Terry
--
|Conference [n]: A meeting where Australian National Party ministers
|tell you what they have decided, and offer you the choice of taking it
|or taking it.
Edmond Wollmann
Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
>> el...@no.spam wrote:
>> In article <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>,
>> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
>> >> raised."
>w> >I don't have to do anything
>> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
I confirm that I am unwilling-and shall not be "spun" into something I am
not.
>w> You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some
>You don't, and never will decide that here.
Do you have any astrology to discuss spinic?
>> I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
student at the college where I recieved the degree you spinics keep harping
on.
>No-one here believes you, because it has been demonstrated many times that
>you are a pathetic liar
Spinning I am a liar does not make me a liar.
>I have seen nothing from you in all my
>years on Usenet to suggest you have the slightest capabilites in any field
>other than that of fraud and deceit.
Wow, more derogation and slander. Do you have any proof?
>> The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do
>> instead of real responses because they fear true and integral
>I note the lack of reference to Festinger's cognitive dissonance studies,
>Tajfel's Intergroup discrimination findings, Coopersmith's studies in
>self-esteem, and dear Solomon Asch surely deserves a bit of a hand-wave if
>you are discussing opinions and peer pressure. [Though I guess `peer' is
>something you'd need to travel to the Everglades to find]. On a more
>chauvinistic note, a reference to your consideration of Leon Mann's work
>in forming your assessment of Ellis's socio-psychological equilibrium
>would have been nice.
I am familiar with them-what about Tyl's astrological work? Are you familiar
with that? We discuss astrology pon these groups. Which part of the above
psychological studies would you like to discuss in astrological terms? Oh,
you can't-well, then some study is your only course of action. I would begin
with "The Horoscope as Identity"-ooh, I am not sure that is in print anymore
(By Noel Tyl Harvard Psychology)-but I have a signed copy Mr Tyl gave me
personally as one of the two he had left. I am afraid I would not be willing
to laon it to a disingenuous spinic though-sorry.
>You don't get it, do you, Ed
SNIP!
No I get it very well, you spinics are not interested in learning, sharing
or growing with new knowledge, you are here to denigrate and harrass like
LazzWaldo AKA ano...@pacbell.net;
Subject:
Edmond Wollmann proves who the liars are
Date:
Tue, 05 May 1998 12:21:15 -0600
From:
Edmond Wollmann<E...@astroconsulting.com>
Organization:
Altair Publications/Astrological Consulting SAN 299-5603
To:
arctu...@earthlink.net
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, alt.astrology.mundane, talk.religion.newage,
alt.censorship
Lazzwaldo AKA Rick Lazzarini, the creator of the "Budweiser Frogs"
animatronics and AOL spammer that lost 5 accounts, has now proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt he was a liar when he said his harassment of me as
ano...@pacbell.net and his harassment of me as Lazz...@aol.com
1,3,4,5-were
two different identities. It is obvious he wanted to hide this fact because
this would indicate he has the money to pay me damages for his slander and
libel of my businesses, and also that he is connected to Susan. Besides the
fact that he uses his money and endless credit card availability to abuse
the
alt.astrology groups and get new accounts on AOL such as Al Simak. I am just
a
poor astrologer trying to serve and create the life I prefer.
Thank you for starting the wheels of justice, I knew I could trust my
reality
for the information I needed to stop your abuse.
#1
Subject: Re: On astrology and prejudice
From: lazz...@aol.com (LazzWaldo)
Date: 1997/11/06
Message-ID: <19971106054...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.astrology]
maberry wrote:
>Okay, you're pretty funny sometimes. Here goes.
That's my intent. I know I go along and beyond the edge sometimes, taking
chances. Sometimes I hit it on the button, and other times I go too far.
Like my friend's mom, who wore these big coke-bottle glasses, said to him
once
(after reducing his sister to tears from teasing):
"You know, sometimes you're funny.
AND SOMETIMES YOU HURT PEOPLE!"
#2
In article <3548D5...@pacbell.net>, anonymÖ <ano...@pacbell.net>
writes
...
Ya know, my friend's mom had a saying:
"You know, sometimes you're funny...AND SOMETIMES YOU *HURT* PEOPLE!"
--
And sometimes you are just a lying aggravating spinic out to try to ruin
peoples businesses. You forgot the coke-bottle bottom glasses Mr.Poor
memory,
out of integrity-liar.
--
"I saw you hiding from a flock of paparazzi, you were hoping, you were
hoping
that the ground would swallow you. I saw you hiding there. I don't care,
what
you want to be, I go back so far, I'm in front of me! It doesn't matter what
they say. You're keeping the game away, hey, hey! I can see the world
tonight.
Look into the future, see it in a different light-IIIIIIII can see the world
tonight!" Paul McCartney "The World Tonight"
_anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
> >> From: Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnett.att.net>
> >> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
> >> >> raised."
> >w> >I don't have to do anything
> >> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the issues.
>
> I confirm that I am unwilling-
Finally!
>and shall not be "spun" into something I am not.
That's right! Therefore, all the evidence that shows you to be a liar,
spammer, illegitimate canceller of other's posts, threatener, and
un-credible due to your refusal to simply post the specifics of the
credentials you claim is not "spun" at all.
> >w> You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some
>
> >You don't, and never will decide that here.
>
> Do you have any astrology to discuss spinic?
Ed, when you x-post to goups like a.u.k and t.r.n, you look really
stupid trying to keep the topic limited solely to astrology.
>
> >> I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
> student at the college where I recieved the degree you spinics keep harping
> on.
>
> >No-one here believes you, because it has been demonstrated many times that
> >you are a pathetic liar
>
> Spinning I am a liar does not make me a liar.
No, you LYING makes you a liar:
"I DO NOT EVER send anyone e-mail" Ed Wollmann, liar.
(I have email from him that proves his statement false. Thus, he's a
liar)
"I now have two psychology degrees" Ed Wollmann, liar.
(He is two weeks, by his own admission, from finishing the requirements
for his second degree. He ain't got the second one yet. Thus, he's a
liar)
"I never spammed" Ed Wollmann, liar.
(Ed Wollmann was tossed from AOL for spamming. Another Ed lie!)
"I have NEVER been incorrect!" Ed Wollmann, liar.
(Ed was incorrect in his aim when he jumped out of a tree to land on a
horse and missed and hit the ground. More Wollmann lies™)
"Nobody HAS to do anything!" Ed Wollmann, liar.
(People HAVE to consume oxygen and nutrients in order to survive. A Bad
Ed lie)
"...As a student of
astrology for 23 years and a counseling astrologer for 18..." Ed
Wollmann, liar.
"I have counseled for 20 years..."! Ed Wollmann, liar.
(These quotes are contradictory. One is a lie. Ed Wollmann is a liar)
"LazzWaldo was kicked of of AOL 7 times" Ed Wollmann, Liar
"LazzWaldo was kicked of of AOL 5 times" Ed Wollmann, Liar
(These quotes are contradictory. One is a lie. Ed Wollmann is a liar)
"I am leaving this newsgroup-for good" Ed Wollmann, Liar
"I am going to stay off because you sherilyn, ansd Rick Ellis are now
> >getting my friends and anyone who supports me accounts canceled," Ed Wollman, Liar
(He came back. He used this lie three times!)
"I have proven that repeatedly with him already." Ed Wollmann, Liar.
"NOTHING is EVER proven!": Ed Wollmann, Liar
(These quotes are contradictory. One is a lie. Ed Wollmann is a liar)
> >I have seen nothing from you in all my
> >years on Usenet to suggest you have the slightest capabilites in any field
> >other than that of fraud and deceit.
>
> Wow, more derogation and slander. Do you have any proof?
Ed, "slander" is spoken defamation. Haven't you, in being turned away by
umpteen attorneys for having no case, gleaned at least this much through
the peals of laughter? And the person stated he has "seen nothing"; you
can't prove a negative. I thought you said you were familiar with the
scientific method!
>
> >> The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do
> >> instead of real responses because they fear true and integral
>
> >I note the lack of reference to Festinger's cognitive dissonance studies,
> >Tajfel's Intergroup discrimination findings, Coopersmith's studies in
> >self-esteem, and dear Solomon Asch surely deserves a bit of a hand-wave if
> >you are discussing opinions and peer pressure. [Though I guess `peer' is
> >something you'd need to travel to the Everglades to find]. On a more
> >chauvinistic note, a reference to your consideration of Leon Mann's work
> >in forming your assessment of Ellis's socio-psychological equilibrium
> >would have been nice.
>
> I am familiar with them-
Sure, NOW you are!
>what about Tyl's astrological work?
It sucks.
>Are you familiar with that? We discuss astrology pon these groups.
Who's "we"? You mean sci.skeptic, alt.usenet.kooks, and
talk,religion,newage?
>Which part of the above
> psychological studies would you like to discuss in astrological terms?
The ones that are invalid because astrology is invalid.
> Oh,
> you can't-well, then some study is your only course of action. I would begin
> with "The Horoscope as Identity"-ooh, I am not sure that is in print anymore
> (By Noel Tyl Harvard Psychology)-
What'd he do, self-publish?
>but I have a signed copy Mr Tyl gave me
> personally as one of the two he had left. I am afraid I would not be willing
> to laon it to a disingenuous spinic though-sorry.
Then why mention it? Once again, you and Ann have information which
youre not willing to share...
>
> >You don't get it, do you, Ed
>
> SNIP!
> No I get it very well,
Ah! THen you have no claim of damages!
>you spinics are not interested in learning, sharing
> or growing with new knowledge,
Yes we are! But it'd be nobody's business if we weren't!
>you are here to denigrate and harrass like
> LazzWaldo AKA ano...@pacbell.net;
Who?
--
"I will lose my accounts because I am a spammer, kook, posting OFF
TOPIC, psychologically unstable freak who needs meds etc.."-Excerpt from
one of Ed's 70+ Christmas'97 posts-so who says he can't predict the
future?
" I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree." Ed Wollmann,P.M.A.F.A.,
AFAN, ISAR, KOTM, LMA, Past board/serving member SDAS, NCGR, ARE, AMORC,
LIAR 5/3/98, "an authority on the topic without the degrees. "
Edmond Wollmann
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> No I get it very well, you spinics are not interested in learning, sharing
> or growing with new knowledge, you are here to denigrate and harrass like
> LazzWaldo AKA ano...@pacbell.net;
Not only that but Susan is the only woman from usenet that I met (and
dated) that SPECIFICALLY threatened to harrass me when I told her I did
not wish to continue seeing her.
"you little man-you worm. You better watch yourself on the newsgroups
cause I will be."
Such vindictiveness and threeats I have gotten from no one else-so she
is the most likely candidate for promoting this continual harrassment of
me and trying to derrogate me for no reason (her vindictive reason).
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Not only that but Susan is the only woman from usenet that I met (and
> dated) that SPECIFICALLY threatened to harrass me when I told her I did
> not wish to continue seeing her.
> "you little man-you worm. You better watch yourself on the newsgroups
> cause I will be."
> Such vindictiveness and threeats I have gotten from no one else-so she
> is the most likely candidate for promoting this continual harrassment of
> me and trying to derrogate me for no reason (her vindictive reason).
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ed, your paranoia knows no bounds!
Watch out! "Susan"'s behind you!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Well, then, it only stands to reason, by virtue of EdLogic™, that if a
lady thought you were a jerk, that she and I would be in on an
incredible conspiracy, Boris and Natasha-like. NOT!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Excuse me a moment..
(Yes, "Susan"? What's that? Tell him he has a little dick? Okay!)
Oh, hey, Ed! I'll bet you have a little dick, doncha?
So, you actually physically dated a woman, and you are afraid of her-on
the newsgroups? Dude, I'd be looking for key scratches or acid burns on
my bike or a broasted bunny, not looking to see if she wrote something
about you on USESNET!
Yeah, me and "Susan"! We're like THIS!! Whoever she is.....
You reveal all the wrong things about yourself, you kook!
CAREFUL! "Susan" has a knife!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
el...@no.spam
In article <354F96...@edmond.hwo>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
>Not only that but Susan is the only woman from usenet that I met (and
>dated) that SPECIFICALLY threatened to harrass me when I told her I did
>not wish to continue seeing her.
So where's the evidence?
>"you little man-you worm. You better watch yourself on the newsgroups
>cause I will be."
A search of Dejanews for that quote finds only your post.
>Such vindictiveness and threeats I have gotten from no one else-so she
>is the most likely candidate for promoting this continual harrassment of
>me and trying to derrogate me for no reason (her vindictive reason).
But you have failed to demostrate the "threeats" are anything but
your own construction.
>Lazzwaldo AKA Rick Lazzarini, the creator of the "Budweiser Frogs"
>animatronics and AOL spammer that lost 5 accounts, has now proven beyond
>a
>shadow of a doubt he was a liar when he said his harassment of me as
>ano...@pacbell.net and his harassment of me as Lazz...@aol.com
>1,3,4,5-were
>two different identities.
There you go again with that alternate meaning for "proven".
>It is obvious he wanted to hide this fact
>because
>this would indicate he has the money to pay me damages for his slander
>and
>libel of my businesses,
Nobody here is in any fear of having to pay you damages for slander or
anything else. You've slandered too many people to take the risk of
filing against anybody. It would be fun to get you on the stand though.
>and also that he is connected to Susan. Besides
>the
>fact that he uses his money and endless credit card availability to
>abuse
>the
>alt.astrology groups and get new accounts on AOL such as Al Simak.
My, aren't you a paranoid little boy.
>I am
>just
>a
>poor astrologer trying to serve and create the life I prefer.
You're just a lying wanna be netcop that can't stand anybody posting
something he doesn't like.
>Thank you for starting the wheels of justice, I knew I could trust my
>reality
>for the information I needed to stop your abuse.
What a guy!
--
"You spin doctoring piece of crap"
"you are ugly as fuck inside and out."
"I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree."
John C. Kalinowski
Jesus Ed, You are one pitiful piece of shit. You babble
about posting other than astrology and then wail your
bullshit paranoid rants like this one!
Take deep breath, log-off, and go visit that La Jolla biker
bar. You can get some nice pats on the head out back. Or
conversley, go suck on a .45.
You owe the human race an apology for peeong in the gene
pool.
Edmond Wollmann
Hi Susan, lonng time no see:-)
Suzyqyou wrote:
> Well hello, ano-darling, it would seem rather appropriate that I contact you as
> I have been tempted so often...after all, Mr. Ed says we are already
> connected....
Gee, I know you may not know this, but did you ever think I may have
dated more than one Susan from the internet? You know how many write to
me. I don't think I put any last name or anything on my post regarding
this.
> Just the smallest bit of irony here, n'cest pas? Care to correspond re: our
> mutual.....umm...well, that's actually a very good epithet: Mutual Ummm.
> Please do write, you are a very amusing man; I think I will enjoy this.
> Susan
Well, at least this post is devoid of those nicey-nice letters you have
written me recently. It seems there is somewhat of a threat to be
discerned behind this message. I guess this indicates how you really
feel?
Oh well, Have fun!
PS; I guess this means we are NOT meeting at the roller coaster?
If you need anymore charts delineated let me know.
--
"If you want, if you want, if you want to love me again. I'll take you
for a ride in my Cadillac! We'd be in the front, we'd be in the back,
yeah! When you're ready, let me know, I'll be waiting!" Paul McCartney
"Flaming Pie"
Edmond Wollmann
Brant wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message
> >I am familiar with them-what about Tyl's astrological work? Are you familiar
> >with that?
> your primary authorities on psychology. There is, of course, the world
> reknowned psychologist Tyl. Like his colleague, Dr. Mack, whose greatest
> contribution to psychiatry is widely recognized by the academic/scholastic
> community as being his research on alien abductions. Shyeah!
> Oh, and let's not forget such scientific minded icons as Backster (plant
> sensitivity), Targ & Puthoff (psi), May (psi), Moody (spirits), MacDonald
> (UFOs), Tart (psi), Soal (psi), Hoagland (ET artifacts), Blondlot (N-rays),
> Crookes (spiritualism), Rhine (psi), Moss (auras), Lysenko (biology), Freidman
> (UFOs), Weiss (PLR), Dean (psi), Hynek (UFOs), and many many others whom I
> can't recall offhand.
> Are we getting the point here? What do they all have in common?
They have all accomplished more than you?
1) Moderate to considerable initial credibility
2) Good minds
3) Too much need to discover new and wonderful things, (or just ego)
4) A loss of academic discipline
5) A loss of credibility
6) At least partially wasted careers
7) No final contribution of value in the paranormal
8) Misled a lot of people (deliberately or not)
> With the exception of #1, Ed, this will be your fate as well.
Wel we'll see now won't we Brantie?
> Brant
He he. All this great superiority from the accomplished Brant!
UNS MD
Usenet Spinic Mindless Dimwit.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Hi Susan, lonng time no see:-)
>
> Suzyqyou wrote:
>
> > Well hello, ano-darling, it would seem rather appropriate that I contact you as
> > I have been tempted so often...after all, Mr. Ed says we are already
> > connected....
>
> Gee, I know you may not know this, but did you ever think I may have
> dated more than one Susan from the internet?
Did you ever think how much you lie, Ed? Just today you said you dated
only ONE person from the 'Net!
>You know how many write to me.
RrrrrrrriiiiiIIIght!
> I don't think I put any last name or anything on my post regarding
> this.
Then do so, and clear it all up now (by the way, this whole thing is
off-topic, Ed; just in case you were thinking about sending a complaint
letter to your own ISP...)
>
> > Just the smallest bit of irony here, n'cest pas? Care to correspond re: our
> > mutual.....umm...well, that's actually a very good epithet: Mutual Ummm.
>
> > Please do write, you are a very amusing man; I think I will enjoy this.
>
> > Susan
>
> Well, at least this post is devoid of those nicey-nice letters you have
> written me recently.
Sounded nicey-nice to me!
> It seems there is somewhat of a threat to be discerned behind this message.
Ed knows all about threats, you betcha! Crushing skull bones, ripping
new assholes, going overseas to England to "see" Sherilyn and her ISP,
looking for where people live....
>I guess this indicates how you really feel?
Looks like!
> Oh well, Have fun!
Sounds like she is! But then you anticipated this, didn't you?
> PS; I guess this means we are NOT meeting at the roller coaster?
Doesn't sound like you'll be getting a room anytime soon, either!
> If you need anymore charts delineated let me know.
Don't bother. Edi only spends ten minutes on 'em anyway. A REAL
astrologer like Ann Shermann-Goebbels takes SIX HOURS, but then she
costs a lot, too.
--
"I will lose my accounts because I am a spammer, kook, posting OFF
TOPIC, psychologically unstable freak who needs meds etc.."-Excerpt from
one of Ed's 70+ Christmas'97 posts-so who says he can't predict the
future?
" I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree." Ed Wollmann,P.M.A.F.A.,
AFAN, ISAR, KOTM, LMA, Past board/serving member SDAS, NCGR, ARE, AMORC,
LIAR 5/3/98, "an authority on the topic without the degrees. "
"I am the richest, most successful person on the planet!
Yeeeeeehaaaaaw!!!" Ed Wollmann, the richest and most successful person
on the planet.
"I am just a poor astrologer..." Ed Wollmann, the riches..er, I mean the
poo widdo homewess astwowagew.
Brant
Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
<snip>
>You don't get it, do you, Ed.[rhet.] This is sci.skeptic. Many in here
>have studied topics you claim to have competance in. When spew-age
>charlatans like you claim expertise in `psychology', they generally profer
>the works of non-scientific philosophers such as Jung and Freud - two men
>whose work merely led to an industry based on unproven, oft-debunked warm
>and fuzzy pseudo-scientific crap.
This is something I have mentioned on a number of occasions. To provide some
perspective for those who are not well-versed in psychology, Ed's choice of
Freud and Jung as his favorite psychological sources, is somewhat analogous to a
person claiming to be a professional astronomer using Ptolemy and Aristotle as
his exclusive authorities on the subject.
Brant
Brant
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message
<snip>
>I am familiar with them-what about Tyl's astrological work? Are you familiar
>with that?
I do apologize for limiting you, in my other posts, to using Freud and Jung as
your primary authorities on psychology. There is, of course, the world
reknowned psychologist Tyl. Like his colleague, Dr. Mack, whose greatest
contribution to psychiatry is widely recognized by the academic/scholastic
community as being his research on alien abductions. Shyeah!
Oh, and let's not forget such scientific minded icons as Backster (plant
sensitivity), Targ & Puthoff (psi), May (psi), Moody (spirits), MacDonald
(UFOs), Tart (psi), Soal (psi), Hoagland (ET artifacts), Blondlot (N-rays),
Crookes (spiritualism), Rhine (psi), Moss (auras), Lysenko (biology), Freidman
(UFOs), Weiss (PLR), Dean (psi), Hynek (UFOs), and many many others whom I
can't recall offhand.
Are we getting the point here? What do they all have in common?
1) Moderate to considerable initial credibility
2) Good minds
3) Too much need to discover new and wonderful things, (or just ego)
4) A loss of academic discipline
5) A loss of credibility
6) At least partially wasted careers
7) No final contribution of value in the paranormal
8) Misled a lot of people (deliberately or not)
With the exception of #1, Ed, this will be your fate as well.
Brant
anonym™
Brant wrote:
That Ed had a good mind?
Sigh. At some distant point in the past, perhaps this was true.
Certainly not in this life.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> 1) Moderate to considerable initial credibility
> 2) Good minds
> 3) Too much need to discover new and wonderful things, (or just ego)
> 4) A loss of academic discipline
> 5) A loss of credibility
> 6) At least partially wasted careers
> 7) No final contribution of value in the paranormal
> 8) Misled a lot of people (deliberately or not)
>
> > With the exception of #1, Ed, this will be your fate as well.
>
> Wel we'll see now won't we Brantie?
W'eve already seen 3 though 8 from you, Ed. #2 ain't gonna happen. I'll
bet money on it.
>
> He he. All this great superiority from the accomplished Brant!
> UNS MD
>
> Usenet Spinic Mindless Dimwit.
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann
NSETBA MD
Not Smart Enough To Be A Medical Doctor
anonym™
You know, Ed lies enough for himself; he doesn't need me spreading
misinformation about him.
He said:
> > Gee, I know you may not know this, but did you ever think I may have
> > dated more than one Susan from the internet?
And then I said:
> Did you ever think how much you lie, Ed? Just today you said you dated
> only ONE person from the 'Net!
But, I took a look at DejaNews again.
He actually wrote:
"Not only that but Susan is the only woman from usenet that I met (and
dated) that SPECIFICALLY threatened to harrass me when I told her I did
not wish to continue seeing her."
So, it could be he's dated other women from Usenet, also named Susan,
who did not SPECIFICALLY threaten to harass him when he told them (quite
politely, I'm sure) he did not wish to continue seeing her.
My apologies, Ed.
However, if you can't keep track of the women you can't get along with,
how can you keep track of your BFN? Or are there more women who don't
get along with you than there are the populations of a million Earths? I
ask that because you are immortal and have lived many previous lives,
according to you.
Sherilyn
In article <35501D...@pacbell.net>#1/1,
ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
...
>
> My apologies, Ed.
>
> However, if you can't keep track of the women you can't get along with,
> how can you keep track of your BFN? Or are there more women who don't
> get along with you than there are the populations of a million Earths? I
> ask that because you are immortal and have lived many previous lives,
> according to you.
>
And sometimes you are so funny you hurt people! :)
--
Your Mom.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Edmond Wollmann
anonym™ wrote:
> You know, Ed lies enough for himself;
I have NOT lied about anything that is being spun on usenet.
> he doesn't need me spreading
> misinformation about him.
No, I don't. And why you spend eveyday harrassing me escapes me. Other
than severe jealousy I sense from this incessant attacking.
> He said:
> > > Gee, I know you may not know this, but did you ever think I may have
> > > dated more than one Susan from the internet?
> And then I said:
> > Did you ever think how much you lie, Ed? Just today you said you dated
> > only ONE person from the 'Net!
I was going to answer you but figured THAT would get spun into some more
crap.
> But, I took a look at DejaNews again.
> He actually wrote:
> "Not only that but Susan is the only woman from usenet that I met (and
> dated) that SPECIFICALLY threatened to harrass me when I told her I did
> not wish to continue seeing her."
Yes, and I have every letter from everyone who has turned on me for no
reason to demonstrate who was vindictive and petty and who was trying to
be understanding.
> So, it could be he's dated other women from Usenet, also named Susan,
> who did not SPECIFICALLY threaten to harass him when he told them (quite
> politely, I'm sure) he did not wish to continue seeing her.
Yes, I have. And yes I was polite. I understand she was hurt, but I
could not continue knowing this vindictiveness, and constantly having to
explain my motivations. I don't mind explaining myself-everyone is
misunderstood at sometime, but consistently questioning motivations is
another matter. I am a bull, if I am left alone and not harrassed I am
peacful and loving, the more I am harrassed the more china I will smash.
> My apologies, Ed.
Thanks, now what about all the other spinning and bull you have taken
out of context and misread? Like I am running an illegal business? Did
you get this kind of harrassment for your Waldo stuff? Did people
constantly call you a fraud and say you were running an illegal business
etc. for no reason and ask you for your degrees on mechanics or
whatever?
> However, if you can't keep track of the women you can't get along with,
> how can you keep track of your BFN?
Not only have I kept track of them, but this post shows how I word what
I say gets eveyone else in trouble. Because they are too quick to try to
judge me, because they think I am judging them-when I am not, and rush
to conclusions and decisions I most often leave wide open. It
demonstrates how all this hatred has built up for me for nothing-only
because I won't apologize or retract anything I haven't seen the need
to.
> Or are there more women who don't
> get along with you than there are the populations of a million Earths?
>I
> ask that because you are immortal and have lived many previous lives,
> according to you.
Sadly, I have considered all of my many relationships (although nowhere
near that but close:-) to all be very special and have no ill feelings
to anyone.
I simply tell the truth about people and things. This upsets people. It
is never my intention to hurt anyone.
--
"Watching and waiting, for someone to understand me. I hope it won't be
very long. Cause in here there's lots of room for doing, the things
you've always been denied. So look and gather all you want to, there's
no one here to stop you from trying." The Moody Blues "Watching and
Waiting"
Rick
In article <3550DA...@earthlink.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> It is quite amusing to read Ed statements re: *his* breaking up with me. I too
>> have kept a complete copy of our correspondance, along with several handwritten
>> cards and letters proclaiming his undying adoration.
>Well! Let's have a posting contest then. We'll let the audience decide!
We already did. You lost.
solitaire
BTW, Ed, what's up with Noel these days? He used to
practice in my area, but he doesn't seem to be listed in the
phone book anymore.
--
solitaire
HOME PAGE
-
http://members.tripod.com/~solitaire_2/solitaires_lair_index.htm
ICQ CHAT SUITE
- http://members.tripod.com/~solitaire_2/chat_noir_menu.htm
Rick
In article <#$mWD1Ee...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <Alch...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>w> You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some
>>You don't, and never will decide that here.
>Do you have any astrology to discuss spinic?
Do you have any ability to stay focused on the discussion of a thread?
Are you so lame you can't come up with anything better than "Do you have
any astrology to discuss" spam?
>>No-one here believes you, because it has been demonstrated many times that
>>you are a pathetic liar
>Spinning I am a liar does not make me a liar.
No, lying made you a liar. Getting caught caused you to be labeled as
a liar.
>>I have seen nothing from you in all my
>>years on Usenet to suggest you have the slightest capabilites in any field
>>other than that of fraud and deceit.
>Wow, more derogation and slander. Do you have any proof?
He was stating an opinion. What proof do you need that it actually
is his opinion? Do you even understand the concept of somebody else
having an opinion?
--
"Wait till we meet in person ass hole I'll rip you a new one then too."
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/lies/wollmann/edlies01.txt
Terry Smith
> From: "Edmond Wollmann" <Alch...@email.msn.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:41:54 -0700
> Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
>> From: Edmond Wollmann <Pleia...@worldnett.att.net>
>> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 01:32:20 -0700
>> el...@no.spam wrote:
>> In article <3548B9...@sdsu.edu>,
>> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> Translation: "I'm unwilling or unable to address directly the issues
>> >> raised."
>> >I don't have to do anything
>> Translation: Edie confirms he is unwill to directly address the
issues.
> I confirm that I am unwilling-and shall not be "spun" into something
> I am not.
Such as someone who can answer a straight question.
>w> You are off topic, do you have anything you CAN address beside some
>>You don't, and never will decide that here.
> Do you have any astrology to discuss spinic?
Why? You desire to cross-post your crap in sci.skeptic. It is addressed in
sci.skeptic. Do you have any evidence that astrology has ever been shonw
to produce replicable and verifiable results, charlatan?
>> I have repeatedly, I have two psychology degrees, have been an honor
> student at the college where I recieved the degree you spinics keep
> harping on.
You claimed to have a degree. You now claim to have two. A penis is not a
degree, but I'll admit no-one ever got that stupid pulling one penis.
>>No-one here believes you, because it has been demonstrated many times
that
>>you are a pathetic liar
> Spinning I am a liar does not make me a liar.
That's why I, writing in sci.skeptic, state the evidence that leads me to
the trivial conclusion that you are lying.
>>I have seen nothing from you in all my
>>years on Usenet to suggest you have the slightest capabilites in any
field
>>other than that of fraud and deceit.
> Wow, more derogation and slander. Do you have any proof?
Do I have proof of a negative, that "*I* have seen nothing..."? What would
you like, other than the posts that are archived in many more places than
deja-news.
>> The one liner <snicker> this is usually what insecure persons do
>> instead of real responses because they fear true and integral
>>I note the lack of reference to Festinger's cognitive dissonance
studies,
>>Tajfel's Intergroup discrimination findings, Coopersmith's studies in
>>self-esteem, and dear Solomon Asch surely deserves a bit of a hand-wave
if
>>you are discussing opinions and peer pressure. [Though I guess `peer' is
>>something you'd need to travel to the Everglades to find]. On a more
>>chauvinistic note, a reference to your consideration of Leon Mann's work
>>in forming your assessment of Ellis's socio-psychological equilibrium
>>would have been nice.
> I am familiar with them-what about Tyl's astrological work? Are you
Again - I note the lack of reference to their work. ObHint: There was a
joker in the group. Given your oft observered propensity for clasping at
any straw you can, your failure to notice this supports the view that your
claim of familiarity is as valid as all your other claims - pure
unadulterated bullshit.
Sprung again, Ed.
> familiar with that? We discuss astrology pon these groups. Which
You insult, bluster, lie and threaten in `these' groups. *THIS* group is
sci.skeptic - we discuss the lies, evasions and pathological logic of
charlatans in this group, and gather to laugh at the antics of famous
idiots such as nameless, EGC, Pete "zero anus" Stapelton and you.
Terry Smith
> From: "Brant" <bra...@erols.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 01:10:40 -0400
> Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
e> <snip>
>charlatans like you claim expertise in `psychology', they generally
profer
>the works of non-scientific philosophers such as Jung and Freud - two
men
> This is something I have mentioned on a number of occasions. To
> provide some perspective for those who are not well-versed in
> psychology, Ed's choice of Freud and Jung as his favorite
> psychological sources, is somewhat analogous to a person claiming to
It is also a strong indication that his `psychology degree' is a
subjective assumption that he `knows' psychological theory after reading a
few spew-age paperbacks and magazines, or was bought for a few dollars
from a paper-mill. We shouldn't be suprised at that, given evidence of
other things he thinks are `proven'.
Greg Lynn
In article <354FFF...@sdsu.edu>, woll...@sdsu.edu says...
>
>Brant wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message
>
>> <snip>
>
familiar
>> >with that?
>
Jung as
>> your primary authorities on psychology. There is, of course, the world
>> reknowned psychologist Tyl. Like his colleague, Dr. Mack, whose greatest
>> contribution to psychiatry is widely recognized by the academic/scholastic
>> community as being his research on alien abductions. Shyeah!
>
>> Oh, and let's not forget such scientific minded icons as Backster (plant
>> sensitivity), Targ & Puthoff (psi), May (psi), Moody (spirits), MacDonald
>> (UFOs), Tart (psi), Soal (psi), Hoagland (ET artifacts), Blondlot (N-rays),
>> Crookes (spiritualism), Rhine (psi), Moss (auras), Lysenko (biology),
Freidman
>> (UFOs), Weiss (PLR), Dean (psi), Hynek (UFOs), and many many others whom I
>> can't recall offhand.
>
>> Are we getting the point here? What do they all have in common?
>
>
> 2) Good minds
> 3) Too much need to discover new and wonderful things, (or just ego)
> 4) A loss of academic discipline
> 5) A loss of credibility
> 6) At least partially wasted careers
> 7) No final contribution of value in the paranormal
> 8) Misled a lot of people (deliberately or not)
>
>> With the exception of #1, Ed, this will be your fate as well.
>
>Wel we'll see now won't we Brantie?
>
>
>He he. All this great superiority from the accomplished Brant!
>UNS MD
And your achievements? Four suspended accounts, two kook awards, a ballooning
record of wild claims, usenet abuse and violation of countless charters and
terms of service, a failed marriage, God knows how many more failed
relationships, and a long-term stint as a professional student at various
universities. Congratulations, Ed!
Cad
The year 2000 already exists in the advertising agencies and marketing
departments of corporations world wide. Be assured that this event will
be well-marketed and there will be many interesting things to buy. And
you and lots of people you know will consume them. There already exist
prototypes for television shows and movies that will deal with people
just like you struggling with the state of their lives in the face of
so awesome an occurence. And you and lots of people you know will watch
them. There will be a sense of promise and rebirth, and in their own
ways politicians, religious advocates, and rock-n-roll stars will all
incorporate this message into their products. Millions will take hope
and attend events appropriate to their lifestyles. And there will be,
of course, a disgruntled minority who will live the fantasy that they
are somehow not a part of all this and that they are in touch with a
more profound millennial reality. They will loudly proclaim their
indignation at the trivial and meaningless rituals embraced by the
ignorant and gullible masses. Naturally there will be appropriate
products for them to buy so that they can express their outrage. And
they will buy them. After all, nobody is going to want to miss out on
the future.
Brant
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <354FFF...@sdsu.edu>...
>Brant wrote:
<snip>
>> Are we getting the point here? What do they all have in common?
>
>They have all accomplished more than you?
No doubt...and all before they abandoned their disciplines to pursue the
paranormal. That's why they are well-known and I am not.
Compared to astrology, though, I can claim that whatever humble achievements I
*do * have, they have at least been honorable.
Brant
Edmond Wollmann
Cad wrote:
> >e> <snip>
The Universe does not have built-in meaning. Things within the Universe
are given meaning by what we believe, or are taught to believe they
mean. The "knowledge of good and evil" was the symbolic forbidden fruit
that Adam and Eve were deceived into taking a bite of-the judgement of
paradise. The installation of value judgement. Values (Taurus) give
birth to judgement (Virgo). Judgement gives birth to status (Capricorn),
status to inequality. What special thing must we do in order to deserve
to exist? Nothing. These ideas are the effect of the illusions of the
physical world (Saturn=to sow/Satan=to oppose or the adversary of
spirit, of Neptune). There is only positive (unifying) and negative
(separating) energy. The concepts of good and bad are subjective value
judgements, and are relative. White light is composed of all colors, and
all colors are required to make white light. The unifying effect of
positive energy. The experience of the colors or the white light is
neither good or bad, just different.
In the natural horoscope the Earth signs represent the need for
functional adequacy in the material world. The experience of Earth is a
spiritual experience. The Earth element formed by the three signs
Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn reflect the spiritual experience of
materiality as the trinity of physicality. They are an aspect of being
not a separation from it. The material world is not something to be
overcome, but a different spiritual experience. Our belief that it must
be difficult is a definition choice. Much of this definition has arisen
from "deus ex machina"(deity separate from the machine) when we lost our
recognition that God and nature were one and the same. The end of the
native American tribes was the beginning of the industrial/territorial
perspectives in the Americas and the reflection of this "delusion of
grandeur" wherein manipulation is considered to be the only signature of
intelligence.
In reference to the spring issue of Horoscope yearbook I stated in the
article entitled "Uranus/Neptune Conjunction Of 1993: A Collective
Unconscious Awakening", that "Refusal to awaken to unconscious aspects
of ourselves promotes the catalyst of earthquakes.", The 6.6 1 San
Fernando California quake occurred 6 days after the Capricorn new moon
which was sandwiched between the Uranus/Neptune conjunction and was
triggered by Mars to the new moon point!(later upgraded to 6.8)
Functional adequacy when taken to extremes becomes empiricism. We need
to wake up our connection to nature. When we focus on the material at
the expense of the spiritual we lose sight of the bigger picture
(Saturn=the focused dream), you cannot serve two masters. This major
conjunction (the last Uranus/Neptune) reflects the peak of our immersion
in the physical world. Empiricism has become the deity. The word hell is
derived from the root word in old English helan, meaning to cover over
or to hide. It is our own unconscious (and other aspects of our psyche)
that we collectively hide. Therefore dis-covery leads us to heaven. This
is why the planet Uranus is outside of Saturn's orbit and before
Neptune's. The farther into space we go, (or the further from our center
of reality, the sun) the more expanded aspects of ourselves we discover.
The Jupiter/Saturn conjunction which occurs on May 28, 2000, reflects
dramatic economic, and consequently value judgement de-structurization.
Natural disasters have a way of quickly dissolving status (Capricorn)
barriers, which is necessary for the next mutation of conjunctions
(Jupiter/Saturn) in the air signs (the trinity of idea interaction).
This country cannot fulfill it's founding premise with such a
separation of classes. With Capricorn on the 9th cusp, this country's
philosophical profile is one of materialism. As Uranus and Neptune enter
the 9th and transit Pluto, the public perspective has made a radical
shift (Pluto rules the 6th, which is the 12th of the public 7th) to
philosophic and religious issues, as transit Pluto's coincident entrance
into Sagittarius reflects. This will come about through the recognition
of the true seat of power in our government, or through citizens of
unusual power or uniqueness (Uranus rules the country's 10th) which
began in February 1995.
Note that the Sun and Venus at the time of the Northridge California
quake were conjunct the U.S. Pluto in 9. The Sun rules 4 and Venus rules
12 and 5. The Capricorn stellium primarily emphasized the need for
another base for economic stability other than manufacturing.
The information superhighway and the computer age in general have
brought to light the fact that a) people can be replaced by high tech
efficient machinery, b) If you are not computer literate you will, if
not already fall into a lower class, and c) that we must learn to follow
what it excites us to do (with integrity-please see my posts on integral
definitions) as an extension of our identity and individuality in order
to prosper (Capricorn is the 12th house of Aquarius) as a nation, and as
a world.
On 3/6/94 the UN reported that 1 out of 3 people on the planet were
unemployed. Taking responsibility for our own creations is the only way
to take back power from governmental structures.
The stellium of Capricorn has produced some great people such as Louis
Pasteur (Dec 27,1822), Clara Barton (Dec 25,1821, founder of the
American Red Cross) and Benjamin Franklin, are proof on the positive
side that the greatest among us, are indeed our servants. Severity
produces accomplishment because the sense of purpose is heightened. We
should take these opportunities to overcome the limitations of physical
reality as these individuals have done.
The Jupiter (Mind) and Saturn (Matter) Conjunction
Since the beginning of the twentieth century this aspect has occurred
in 14 Capricorn (November 28, 1901), 26 Virgo (September 9, 1921), 14,
12, 9, degrees Taurus (August 7, 1940, October 20, 1940, February 15,
1941), again in 25 Capricorn (February 18, 1961), and curiously at 9, 8,
and 5 Libra, a grand mutation (December 31, 1980, March 4, 1981, July
24, 1981). All of them co-incide with major priority restructuring
(socially), economic restructuring, and eras of focus upon the archetype
(sign) in which the conjunction occurs and either conflict or ease with
these Archetypes (aspects).
In this century the focus has been upon the Earth family or the
archetype of physicality. Our entire day and even our life revolves
around the material aspect of living.
The first conjunction in 1901 in Capricorn, launched the industrial
revolution with automobiles as the base (Uranus opposes Pluto from
Sagittarius to Gemini). The Moon opposes the conjunction from the
natural fourth to tenth houses, and trines Mercury in eight, reflecting
a change in not only status (fourth and tenth axis), but that it would
be fulfilled through locomotion (Mercury). Mars' opposition to Neptune
reflects the little acknowledged dependence upon oil and our resulting
pollutants. Mars opposition Neptune is an easy rational of the untrue
with little reliance or concern for foresight. Ego (Mars) separates
itself (opposition) from spirit (Neptune).
In 1921 the conjunction occurred at 26 degrees Virgo. Here the
saturation (Saturn) of mind (Jupiter) was focused upon the archetype or
aspect of material reality having to do with analytical discernment. A
need to efficiently organize our material proliferation, and was a
strong catalyst to judgment of the material haves and have nots. This
conjunction is square the Moon at critical accelerative degree in the
ninth house and sign of Sagittarius, the belief the mind holds
(Sagittarius), it physically makes manifest (Capricorn). This tension
was meant to broaden perspectives and not become so involved and
dependent upon new found material comforts (Pluto in Cancer). We
continue to tighten our material focus, and let go of spiritual trust,
hence a great and limiting depression. The opposition of the Sun to
Uranus shows that perspective (6th and 12th axis) is what we needed to
wake up and change.
The conjunction in August of 1940 reflects powerful developmental
energies with regard to material resources (conjunct in Taurus), the
creative extension or use of those resources (square the Sun in Leo in
the natural fifth) and the powerful adjustments with regard to world
relationships that would have to be made to ensure security (Moon in
Libra inconjunct the conjunction, and in mutual reception with Venus).
Events could be very explosive (Mars square Uranus). The attack on Pearl
Harbor, the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, world war is written
all over this chart as the effect of profoundly charged material focus.
This conjunction occurred in the twelfth house (the need for
introspection) of the United States inconjunct the national Saturn,
square the Sun in four (national security).
The last Capricorn conjunction in February of 1961 shows strong
developmental tension between the need for pioneering (the Moon and
Venus in Aries) and physical manifestation and status (the conjunction
in Capricorn). Mars is in four and disposes of the Moon and Venus.
Emotional security is dependent upon this tension, a mountain is made
out of a molehill. John F. Kennedy announces a goal of putting a man on
the Moon. The cold war gets colder and the first space explorations are
made as the effect of this competitive Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. There
are unexpected events. Uranus in the sign of Leo (the younger
generation) inconjuncts the conjunction. The Vietnam effort fails and
the first attempt at rejection of the industrial/territorial perspective
is seen as the conjunctions occur in late degrees of the Earth trinity.
Mobilizing
resources for war and defense of territory are about to undergo rapid
changes and by the mutation conjunction of 1980, 5 this shift
accelerates to the trinity of idea interaction (Air sign emphasis).
Relationships will now be more important than material. The children
born during this mutation represent a quantum leap in understanding, and
a preparation towards interaction with other worlds. The square of the
conjunction to the tenth house Sun/Mercury conjunction, reflects our
current era of conflict between social issues of unemployment,
homelessness, "family values", fatherless children, and in general the
effects of our extreme focus upon material as the determinant of status
(Capricorn) as a requirement for identity (Libra). Mars at 0 degree
Aquarius, reflects the direction of energy application until our final
encounter with the effects of our preoccupation and illusions of the
material world. Social application. When Uranus enters Aquarius in April
of 1995 it's conjunction to this Mars position will usher in dramatic
social, scientific, and extraterrestrial discoveries. The debate will be
about what constitutes consciousness.
The Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of May 28, 2000, is the last Earth
conjunction. It is dramatic, and alarming. Jupiter and Saturn are the
only planets in Earth and are squared by Uranus in Aquarius. Unexpected
social changes shatter every resource base. Venus, the dispositor of the
conjunction, the Sun, and Mars, all oppose Pluto, the asteroids and
Chiron from the information signs of Gemini/Sagittarius. Jupiter
disposes of the Sagittarius planets (and planetoids) and Mercury, which
is squared by the Moon in Aries disposes of the Gemini planets. Pioneers
discover information that dramatically alters world perspective (Pluto).
There will be great economic destructurization which will necessitate
power decentralization. Our greatest difficulties will come from
governmental disarray and the final recognition that we have given far
to much power to those in authority. New aspects of the higher self and
mind will have to be put to use by each individual as the current
collision of the comet Shoemaker/Levy into Jupiter reflected as well as
Hale-Bopp.(please see my post on Halley's and other Comets).
Our philosophical and religious beliefs will be shattered (Uranus
square Jupiter) and business will not be "as usual" (Uranus square
Saturn). The unsoundness of our values (Taurus) and economic structures
leads to destruction (Saturn square Uranus) through power struggles
and war (Sun/Mars opposition Pluto, Pluto opposing Sun/Mars midpoint.
The information/perspective age (Sagittarius/Gemini) is obviously
accelerating and creates a new arena for crime and enlightenment. The
trine of the Sun to Neptune in the Air element promises some marvelous
and exciting artistic and spiritual enlightenment and is the way out of
some difficult dilemmas. Issues must be resolved in this period because
the next 40 years look very dangerous. Discovery of alien life
accelerates.
As the mutation into Air signs begins in earnest in 2020, the children
of the Grand Mutation begin to assume positions of authority. This
conjunction is conjunct the star Altair (the flyer) at 0 Aquarius. The
world begins a much more idealistic, altruistic, and metaphysically
oriented point of view. This marks the true beginning of the age.
Astrology finds a home. Again the conjunction is square Uranus. Mars is
square Pluto in Capricorn from Aries. This reflects a power struggle of
dramatic proportions, and a divergence of dissimilar realities.
The conjunction of 2040 contains the Sun square Uranus! We are about
to enter 60 years of waking up to profound creativity, and in this
Jupiter/Saturn conjunction the square between the Sun in Scorpio and
Uranus in Leo, issues of life and it's creation-or annihilation are
obviously and powerfully explored (Mars in Scorpio also squares Pluto in
Aquarius) and with treacherous results (Neptune forms a T-square with
the Uranus/Sun square). The children of the 80's face dire relationship
decisions as this is their 2nd Saturn return. The square of the Moon in
Virgo to Venus in Sagittarius (the dispositor of the conjunction)
reflects strong conflicts between technological discernment (Virgo) and
spiritual recognitions (Sagittarius).
The challenges of the future look strong indeed. The Earth conjunctions
of the past (especially 1940) were strong as well, but not as
developmental as these in the future seem to be. A word to the wise is
sufficient.
The Earth conjunctions have been our test and temptation of believing
that the material world is all that matters, or that it is all that
there is. Fortunately many of us have done this before, and have
recognized that the beast spoken of in Revelations; 6 is wrestled with
in our minds alone, even when it appears to be empirically real, and
externally oppositional (Saturn, helan).
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
SNIP
> The Universe does not have built-in meaning.
Liar. Prove it.
Scot Mc Pherson
Hey Ed,
I don't agree with what you are saying here. I do not mean the
correspondences, they may well be true. It is the idea that good or bad is
merely and idea that has no meaning. I do not think that would be true,
otherwise the cycle would mean nothing. Although the cycle needs be
complete, what side of the metaphoric 'struggle' do stand on?
"We are here to live and understand, but not to kill."
Enigma2: Cross of changes
Scot
Just act rightly, the rest will follow.
P.S. Lessons exist on all levels. As we become wiser, we still have the same
internal struggles, they are just on newer levels. Until we realize there
never were any 'new' levels, we were always there.
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <35550B...@earthlink.net>...
Brant
Greg Lynn wrote in message <6j1re3$g4i$7...@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>...
>In article <354FFF...@sdsu.edu>, woll...@sdsu.edu says...
>>
>>Brant wrote:
>>
>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message
>>> With the exception of #1, Ed, this will be your fate as well.
>>
>>Wel we'll see now won't we Brantie?
>>
>>> Brant
>>
>>He he. All this great superiority from the accomplished Brant!
>>UNS MD
>
>And your achievements? Four suspended accounts, two kook awards, a ballooning
>record of wild claims, usenet abuse and violation of countless charters and
>terms of service, a failed marriage, God knows how many more failed
>relationships, and a long-term stint as a professional student at various
>universities. Congratulations, Ed!
>
Yes, I feel humbled by comparison. My accomplishments, side by side:
Suspended accounts: none
Kook awards: none
Wild claims: none that I know of, (except when joking)
Usenet abuse: none
Charter and TOS violations: none
(And you didn't mention):
Lies on the Usenet: only one (my birth data)
Now I'm a little depressed. The only thing remaining which I have even
remotely come close to Ed in is continuing education, as I must confess that I
too, have spent a lot of time as an adult in college classrooms and labs.
As for Ed's marital success, or his relationships with women, recently
discussed in this forum, I do not believe these are any of my business. To
dwell on them would be a discredit to me and would tend to undermine my
credibility.
Brant
Rick
In article <6j3mkr$5...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> A: All three are correct. Next Question.
>Wrong!
Edie has spoken. Pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain.
--
"I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree."
Edmond Wollmann
Brant wrote:
> As for Ed's marital success, or his relationships with women, recently
> discussed in this forum,
Generated by Susan.
> I do not believe these are any of my business. To
> dwell on them would be a discredit to me and would tend to undermine my
> credibility.
I discredited you when you first came here and tried to control the
conversation towards Randi. Thats when you backed out and called in
these spammers who have ruined the group ever since.
Brant
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <3555C1...@earthlink.net>...
>Brant wrote:
>
>> As for Ed's marital success, or his relationships with women, recently
>> discussed in this forum,
>
>Generated by Susan.
>
>> I do not believe these are any of my business. To
>> dwell on them would be a discredit to me and would tend to undermine my
>> credibility.
>
>I discredited you when you first came here and tried to control the
>conversation towards Randi. Thats when you backed out and called in
>these spammers who have ruined the group ever since.
Coming from such an expert attempting to control other people in this forum, I
suppose I should defer to your vastly greater experience, but I have a hard time
figuring out what you're talking about. The message from Randi was directed to
Pete. You jumped in while Pete hid, and I characterized that as covering for
him. Then I suggested you take advantage of the opportunity to win the money
for yourself. Now as far as discrediting me for that egregious attempt at
controlling others, I must have somehow missed the post in which you did that.
But then, I guess the real significance of your comments above, is to show
that even when I come to your defense concerning your real-life relationships,
and how I don't believe they are fair game for Usenet discussion, you *still*
manage to muster a hostile response.
Brant
John Davis
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
: The Universe does not have built-in meaning.
[...]
In a physical sense this is blatant nonsense. There is all kind of physical
meaning in the universe. Alas, however, in a strictly spiritual sense,
you are right. The only meaning the universe has in a spiritual sense is
what we as a culture and individuals give it. For people like you, that
can't look the universe in the eye and make a place for themselves in it,
the crutches of superstition become the only recourse. I'm sure that
without the weak reed of astrology it would be dificult for you to find
any reason to go on. Your need for support and your inability to face
the fact that you are on your own must be trully frightening. I trully
feel sorry for you but you really must find some other way to scream;
"Please help me. I'm all alone and I'm afraid." Posting huge blocks of
rambling puesdo-philosophical rants interlaced with references to
imaginary star groupings is really stupid.
--
A_A
John Davis (o o) What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ What is a bad man but a good man's job?
Lao-tzu
Terry Smith
> From: bab...@ix.netcom.com(Cad)
> Date: 9 May 1998 20:25:22 GMT
>
>> Terry Smith wrote in message <1a1_980...@gastro.apana.org.au>...
>
>e> <snip>
>
> Besides alot of riots or nothing???
No, I didn't. That sentence isn't English. I have checked my outbound
traffic since January, and I have not contributed to this thread.
Barry Adams
On Sat, 09 May 1998 19:05:54 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
White light is composed of all colors, and
>all colors are required to make white light.
Not true, or at least not true for the human eye, which is incapable
of seeing the difference between white light made of all colours and
white light made of just red, green and blue.
Barry Adams