"Skeptics" so-called, what they do and why
Bruce Daniel Kettler
bhu...@cris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) self-proclaimed "skeptic" so
called, writes of me:
I had written:
>> > I have the integrity to argue principle, and ignore facts.
"I have the integrity to argue principle, and
ignore facts."
----Bruce Daniel Kettler on Logic
He projected the idea that there was something wrong with it.
How? Well, obviously, in the usual SKEP-TI-CULT manner, which
is one of blatant deception, he quoted it out of context.
To anyone reading my recent posts, it was obvious that I had
ignored the fact that I had not accepted money from teenagers for
my services, something many SKEP-TI-CULT ists had accused me of.
I had not argued *that fact,* but rather the *principal* of, what
if I had, would that have been wrong. It takes integrity to
argue what one believes in, rather than to be occupied with
defense, with attention to facts, alone.
So, instead of quoting me in context, they prefer to write
deceptively of me, and thus attempt to prove, supposedly, that
what I write is wrong or illogical. As I've written elsewhere,
such attacks, to discredit the writer rather than answering their
points, is primitive behavior.
In fact, it proves that I have enormous impact on the WEB, and on
USENET exposing the sickness that is polluting the INTERNET from
this fanatical cult of so-called "SKEPTICS." Otherwise, they
would not devote such time and energy in their attempt to
discredit me.
There's more on this cult of so-called skeptics:
click at
"skeptics"
The following, also quoted my statement about integrity, out of
context:
Postman <jami...@mindspring.com
PomEGranate <seno...@earthlink.net>
Lou Minatti <slar...@concentric.net>
Christopher J. Carrell <c...@pandora.bio.purdue.edu>
digger <bhe...@spamfree.polarnet.com>
wrote:
A-Hah! A plea of "innocent" has been noted.
Can anyone wonder why I write of a "kangaroo court" It is
obvious that the writers have no right to ask me questions about
my activities, like that of an inquisition. For them to do so,
repeatedly over a period of several months,
leads me, rightfully, to compare their activities
with that of a "KANGAROO COURT". Such a so-called
"court", obviously, has no authority, no real power, and
that's what the expression means. Obviously, the use of
the word "inquisition" is simply a manner of expression,
Mostly, they are illogical, deceptive, and generally stupid,
and so hardly qualified to judge me, whether in the metaphoric
"court" of public opinion, or, hypothetically, otherwise.
Blair P Houghton <bl...@trojan.neta.com>
Again, in this typically deceptive manner, quoting me out of
context:
====================================
>It is absurd for people to ask me ...
>It shows a collective mentality...
>and for one person right after the other ...
>USENET KANGAROO COURT...
>the combined lot of you creeps who lie about me...
Bruce Daniel Kettler, paranoiac.
==================================
end quote
==================================
No, it does not show me to be paranoic, but rather for the
writer, above, to be a liar.
I have shown, in indisputable ways, that people lie about my
writing. This is obvious, as the USENET ARCHIVES
(www.dejanews.com) indicate what I'd previously written.
Taken in context, and considering the evidence of what I write to
be true, my writing does not indicate what this writer would
attempt to convey.
It seems, to me, that my writing on the WEB, the prominence of
exposure on SEARCH ENGINES such as YAHOO, and this writing here
on USENET, is really "getting to"* you sick people.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) type: "Skeptics what they do and why"
If the cult of so-called "skeptics" goes to these lengths to
discredit me, good! It shows that I am making an impact.
You have shown yourselves to by lying, slandering, and it seems,
quite frustrated fanatics.
So, you don't like my exposure of your cult? That's really, "too
bad,"** folks. I am not discouraged by your blatant deception on
USENET, but rather invigorated by it. Every attempt to discredt
me, further exposes you.
*"getting to" - affecting so as to annoy a person or persons
** The expression, "too bad" in the USA means: That is something
that you, whether you like it or not, will have to accept.
Another USA expression with the same meaning is "tough" or "tough
luck."
E-mail: dan (AT) psicounsel.com
URL: www . psicounsel . com
ART BELL CLUB: /artbellclub after "com"
WEBMASTER: /webmaster after "com"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Roger Williams rog...@tiac.net
wrote:
"...we often receive random bursts of
incomprehensible noise from BDK, but
these seldom contain any
recoverable intelligence."
...in an obvious attempt at ridicule.
In a recent post (www.dejanews.com) which is available through
the DEJANEWS ARCHIVES, the first two so-called "points" were
indisputable lies. I pointed out those lies, and ignored the
remainder of his writing, as his being such an obvious liar, it
didn't seem worth my time. Other posts about me, in which he
asked questions, were combinations of ridicule, using lies as a
basis for such ridicule, and other distortions of fact.
He claims he's not a so-called "skeptic". Is he on some
"mission"? He certainly doesn't use reason or honesty in his
writing. It's something to ponder about.
Kristine Campbell
In article <33b0972f...@news.pcisys.net>,
d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>Roger Williams rog...@tiac.net
>
> wrote:
>
> "...we often receive random bursts of
> incomprehensible noise from BDK, but
> these seldom contain any
> recoverable intelligence."
>
> ...in an obvious attempt at ridicule.
>
attempt (v.) 1. to make an effort at; try; undertake; seek: to attempt to
a debate;to atempt towalk six miles. 2. to attack; make an effort
against. (<L attempt to test or tamper with.)
achieve (v.) 1. to bring to a successful end; accomplish. 2. to get or
attain by effort: to achieve victory. 3. to bring about an intended
result; accomplish some purpose. (<F achever:to finish).
sorry, weasel boy, methinks you meant to say that roger achieved ridicule
instead of attempted ridicule.
but, really, ridiculing you is hardly a difficult task, although mr.
williams was extremely eloquent and right on the money. he really is
overqualified for the job of debating and pointing out your numerous flaws
in reasoning.
kristine
--
"shut up, cameron!"
--------------------------
Queen of the Venom Spewers
--------------------------
Official Knight of What is Deemed Funny and Amusing in afab
Proud Board Member since October 1996
and now an Official Member of the Cult #13-13131-313....and that ain't no *LIE*
Kristine Campbell
In article <33af8eb7...@news.pcisys.net>,
d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>bhu...@cris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) self-proclaimed "skeptic" so
>called, writes of me:
>
>I had written:
>
>>> > I have the integrity to argue principle, and ignore facts.
>
>"I have the integrity to argue principle, and
>ignore facts."
> ----Bruce Daniel Kettler on Logic
>
>He projected the idea that there was something wrong with it.
>How? Well, obviously, in the usual SKEP-TI-CULT manner, which
>is one of blatant deception, he quoted it out of context.
>
>To anyone reading my recent posts, it was obvious that I had
>ignored the fact that I had not accepted money from teenagers for
>my services, something many SKEP-TI-CULT ists had accused me of.
>I had not argued *that fact,* but rather the *principal* of, what
>if I had, would that have been wrong. It takes integrity to
>argue what one believes in, rather than to be occupied with
>defense, with attention to facts, alone.
as far as i know, no one has accused you of accepting money from teenagers
for your "psychic" services. <gag> what i, along with others, state for
the record is that you consistantly and blantantly advertise your
"services" <gag> to teen ng's, and have, on occasion, encouraged them to
purchase services with parental credit cards. all of this WITHOUT
parental consent. also, we here in afab have taken umbrage with the fact
that you refuse to acknowledge that by not stating that your "services"
<gag> are for entertainment only, and by trolling for teens you are not
only violating certain laws (most of which, ironically, are in place to
protect YOU, the vendor....the ultimate proof of bruce the moronic idiot),
but violating certain moral and ethical codes.
>
>So, instead of quoting me in context, they prefer to write
>deceptively of me, and thus attempt to prove, supposedly, that
>what I write is wrong or illogical.
gee, i don't think we have to quote you out of context to prove that you
are wrong, illogical, stupid, paranoid, delusional, moronic, idiotic,
bumbling, fumbling and rambling.
>
>In fact, it proves that I have enormous impact on the WEB, and on
>USENET exposing the sickness that is polluting the INTERNET from
>this fanatical cult of so-called "SKEPTICS.
jeeeezus!
>Otherwise, they
>would not devote such time and energy in their attempt to
>discredit me.
ya, know, weasel boy, one could say the same about you and your
unbelievable fixation for us here on afab.
Glen Quarnstrom
gop...@NOSPAM.deltanet.com (Kristine Campbell) wrote:
>In article <33b0972f...@news.pcisys.net>,
>d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>
>>Roger Williams rog...@tiac.net
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> "...we often receive random bursts of
>> incomprehensible noise from BDK, but
>> these seldom contain any
>> recoverable intelligence."
>>
>> ...in an obvious attempt at ridicule.
>>
<definitions deleted>
>sorry, weasel boy, methinks you meant to say that roger achieved ridicule
>instead of attempted ridicule.
>
>but, really, ridiculing you is hardly a difficult task, although mr.
>williams was extremely eloquent and right on the money. he really is
>overqualified for the job of debating and pointing out your numerous flaws
>in reasoning.
As usual, LoonBoy got his attributions wrong, probably deliberately.
I wrote the segment that he quoted. Of course, Mr. Williams has done
yeoman's work in exposing just how qualified our KotM is for his
title, and probably deserves an afa-b knighthood and a membership in
the SKEP-TI-CULT for his efforts.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
Ray Karczewski is a liar.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Kristine Campbell gop...@deltanet.com wrote:
> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
> >Roger Williams rog...@tiac.net
> > ...in an obvious attempt at ridicule.
> attempt (v.) 1. to make an effort at
> achieve (v.) 1. to bring to a successful end
Success at ridicule involves the use of truthful statements. Since
those writing of me in the ways you describe, for the most part,
lie, and I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
USENET ARCHIVES, the ridicule is ineffective.
For those not willing to read my replies, in which I show the lies, then
to those, it might seem to be ridicule. Are you one of the bozos who
doesn't examine the replies from me, carefully?
As for ridicule, one might consider you to have been ridiculed, and that
ridicule to have been seen by many more than those who view USENET
alone.
On my web page, the writing of one the most outragious liars of all
times appears. That is Kristine Campbell, and every lie is provable,
as the record of every thing I've written is in the ARCHIVES, and kept
there for quite some time.
For more on the most ridiculous, the most abundant within one long post,
and some of the most ludicrous lies:
click at
"skeptics"
and then click again, at the words: "Kristine Campbell"
--
Kristine Campbell
In article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.com>,
d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:
>Success at ridicule involves the use of truthful statements. Since
>those writing of me in the ways you describe, for the most part,
>lie, and I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
>USENET ARCHIVES, the ridicule is ineffective.
bruce, you have never tried to prove what i wrote is a lie. you calling
it a lie doesn't make it a lie.
when pushed for examples, you merely continue to point to your pathetic
webvertizement (which again, is a testament to your unbelievably strange
editing techniques). sometimes you simple say to search deja...again, you
have made many accusations that i have told numerous untruths...you prove
it. just like i can prove everything i say about you to be true...that
you spam teenage ng's, solicit teenagers to purchase "psychic" readings,
that you are a complete moron...etc. i don't have to use some lame
tactice like saying "search deja"...i can post it right here.
>
>For those not willing to read my replies, in which I show the lies, then
>to those, it might seem to be ridicule. Are you one of the bozos who
>doesn't examine the replies from me, carefully?
gee, bruce, i try to read the stuff you post. but most times it goes on
and on and on and on and on...and my eyeballs fall out and my brain
freezes. i have heard that there is research going on to use your posts
as torture tactics to ellict information from spies.
massive snippage...
--
kristine
Queen of the Venom Spewers
-------------------
"shut up, cameron!"
-------------------
"I have the integrity to argue principle, and ignore facts."
-Bruce Daniel Kettler
--------------------------
I am the Official Knight of What is Deemed Funny and Amusing in afab
Lady Nidiffer
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.c
om>...
>
>Success at ridicule involves the use of truthful statements. Since
>those writing of me in the ways you describe, for the most part,
>lie, and I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
No, they don't lie for the most part.
>For those not willing to read my replies, in which I show the lies, then
>to those, it might seem to be ridicule. Are you one of the bozos who
>doesn't examine the replies from me, carefully?
This bozo reads you very carefully. Don't you see me quoting you all the
time?
>On my web page, the writing of one the most outragious liars of all
>times appears.
Yeah, it's your writing.
See more of this nuts writing below.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7945/
click at
"nuts"
Lady Nidiffer,
"You didn't write I was being criticised because of *ALLEGED* false claims,
but rather, "because you screw..." Bruce Daniel Kettler
Oh, by the way, Ray Karczewski is a liar
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Kristine Campbell
> In article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.com>,
> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:
> >those writing of me in the ways you describe, for the most part,
> >lie, and I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
> bruce, you have never tried to prove what i wrote is a lie. you calling
> it a lie doesn't make it a lie.
Nearly everyone who has access to USENET, has access to my WEB PAGES.
On
those pages, I have countered your remarks by stating that what you
accused
me of having written, was not written. The ARCHIVES prove that
conclusively:
http://www.dejanews.com
That's what I've done, and it is all I have to do, not what your
illogical
statements seem to indicate. I do only what I wish to do. Those
interested
can check, and many of those not interested *enough* will doubt.
That's all there is to it, Kristine.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
type: "Skeptics What They Do and Why"
click at: "Kristine Campbell"
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> screeches
hysterically:
>On my web page, the writing of one the most outragious liars of all
>times appears. That is Kristine Campbell, and every lie is provable,
Gee, Kristine, how does it feel to be more famous than Nixon?
Being called a liar by KookBoy is like being called garrulous by Dicky
Hoagland or petulant by bRay Linenoise.
Edmond Wollmann
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
Snip!
I would like to ask a couple of things of you in a civil way.
A) Please don't use my arguments for me.
B) If you are going to continue to allow these people to be so powerful
in your life could you please remove alt.astrology from the postings? I
really don't care what these folks think and I know the others here
don't either. We are quite confident of what we do. If they were asking
logical questions or were truly seeking info I would be glad to explain,
but this is quite different from tit for tat sarcasm over and over. OK?
I have seen not one solid argument from either side.
C) You might wish to think about not giving your power to defining
cynics all day-for to define them so solidly and then not act on what
you prefer and not acting on what you don't, generally places them MORE
solidly in your reality and creates them to be a bigger obstacle than
they really are. No one has the power to thwart anything you wish to do
unless you believe they do-and it seems you believe they do.
Just a suggestion, not to offend but I cannot stand by in all honesty
and not state it "the way it is" as you say. My goal is to be of service
to EVERYONE.
Thanks for those who show some dignity.
Ed
--
"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
dr. digger
tho...@bubba.nhn.uoknor.edu (Rollin Thomas) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> writes:
>
>[To Kristine]
>
>>You have a spin on meanings, all your own,
>>which is part of your abnormal psychology.
>
>Sometimes people say things to other people that are really true
>about themselves.
>
>Rollin
Sometimes, like in Ray's case, this is a form of confession
and self-exorcism. In fact, the parallels between Bruce and
Ray are erie.
dr. digger, HdPD
Karczewski is a liar.
"I perceive the energy of the questions in your present
inquiry to be shallow, immaterial, irrelevant, speculative,
misdirecting, not honest, and just plain BS. Therefore
I'll not answer them."
--June '97 KotM Candidate Ray Karczewski
"Did it ever get through to that sick mind of yours, that I
don't have to answer your questions."
--May '97 KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler®
Jerry Watson
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
(snip)
How do you propose to demonstrate your claims of paranormal powers?
jdw
Jerry Watson
Jerry Watson
Dan Pressnell
>Or do you make the resturant PROVE the steak will be good
>before you taste it?
If restaurants were as rife with fraud as psychics and astrologers are,
YOU BET!
Dan
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>Roger Williams rog...@tiac.net
>
> wrote:
>
> "...we often receive random bursts of
> incomprehensible noise from BDK, but
> these seldom contain any
> recoverable intelligence."
Kettler, you dingbat, Williams didn't write that, I did. How can you
expect anybody to believe a word you write when you blatantly lie
about what others say?
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
More Klassic Kooky Kettlerism's:
>I had not argued *that fact,* but rather the *principal* of, what
>if I had, would that have been wrong. It takes integrity to
>argue what one believes in, rather than to be occupied with
>defense, with attention to facts, alone.
[...]
>Can anyone wonder why I write of a "kangaroo court" It is
>obvious that the writers have no right to ask me questions about
>my activities, like that of an inquisition.
Wayne Dyer
When the waiter brings the steak and I can see WITH MY OWN TWO EYES that
it's uncooked and crawling with maggots, I'd say it's been proven that
the steak is bad. No such test has ever proven the validity of claims
made by paranormal advocates. (They're akin to folks who like raw, rotting
meat and think other people are too closed-minded for not eating it up.)
As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
Pfffft!
--
Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
Edmond Wollmann
Wayne Dyer wrote:
> Dan Pressnell wrote:
> > >Or do you make the resturant PROVE the steak will be good
> > >before you taste it?
> > If restaurants were as rife with fraud as psychics and astrologers are,
> > YOU BET!
> When the waiter brings the steak and I can see WITH MY OWN TWO EYES that
> it's uncooked and crawling with maggots, I'd say it's been proven
Oh I see, sort of like the E-coli that killed a few people?
--
"His arguments are as thin as soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that
starved to death." Abraham Lincoln on Douglas' debating ability
DrPostman
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Wayne Dyer wrote:
>
>> Dan Pressnell wrote:
>> > >Or do you make the resturant PROVE the steak will be good
>> > >before you taste it?
>> > If restaurants were as rife with fraud as psychics and astrologers are,
>> > YOU BET!
>
>> When the waiter brings the steak and I can see WITH MY OWN TWO EYES that
>> it's uncooked and crawling with maggots, I'd say it's been proven
>Oh I see, sort of like the E-coli that killed a few people?
>--
Uh, he did say "uncooked". And isn't cooking meat properly
the way to kill e-coli0157?
--
Yes, Raymond Kaszewski is a liar
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
Knight of the Potato Cannon,
Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
And a lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Want to email me? My address is: jamiemps(at)mindspring.com
"You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
Bruce Daniel Kettler
--
Dr. Hans Sprockets
>bhu...@cris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) self-proclaimed "skeptic" so
>called, writes of me:
>
>I had written:
>
>>> > I have the integrity to argue principle, and ignore facts.
>
>"I have the integrity to argue principle, and
>ignore facts."
> ----Bruce Daniel Kettler on Logic
>
>He projected the idea that there was something wrong with it.
>How? Well, obviously, in the usual SKEP-TI-CULT manner, which
>is one of blatant deception, he quoted it out of context.
>
Quote this in context, you pink spammin' triple-chinned horror!
AN OPEN INVESTIGATION OF BRUCE DANIEL KETTLER'S "PINK TITTY" graphic.
View the attachment, secured from SKEP-TI-CULT archives (as if you
forgot), and then tell us, King of Spam, why you had this as your
website background. It was prominently displayed until it was pointed
out that the combination of advertising to alt.teens, and then
displaying rows and rows of Inflatable Pink Titties when the teenagers
came to visit, might logically be considered as your sick way of
"attracting the vulnerable". You are such a creepy moron, BDK.
So, go ahead, argue the principle of your spammin' pink Boobies!
Do ya feel spammy, punk? Well, DOO Ya?
And all the while, remember that the KETTLER DOO CONTEST entries
are piling in as we speak. Dozens and Dozens of Doos -- all Spammed on
Bru's Amazingly Pink pate. See the more perfect look of a pinkish
baldin' Spamming Psychic Slut now known in the "archives" as:
Bruce Daniel Kettler, INTERNET KOOK OF THE MONTH for May 1997!
Only Seven More Days Left! Enter the KETTLER DOO CONTEST today!
SPAM A DOO ON THE PINK BALDING PATE OF BRU
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7945/bdk_doo.html
Marsha
Wayne Dyer wrote:
> As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
> prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
> making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
> rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
> eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
> cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
> pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
> all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
> unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
>
> Pfffft!
>
> --
> Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
> Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
No-one's asking you to believe anything or offering you anything, so why
don't you go to another restaurant.
Is your name really Wayne Dyer????
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
Sheldon Sheps wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >"If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us. That
> >the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports."...."This we
> >know. The Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All
> >things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not
> >weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to
> >the web, he does to himself. Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will
> >happen when the Buffalo are all slaughtered? What will happen when the
> >secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men, and
> >the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires?
> > It is the end of living and the beginning of survival." Chief Seattle
> Except, this is not what Chief Seattle said. I vaguely remembered
> this controversy and did a quick search on the web. There are a number
> of sites that discuss this. Here's one.
> http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/thchief2.html
Irrelevant, I studied Native American cultures in school-the point is
the same full statements or not. I am quite aware of the controversy-the
point was that the Native Americans considered their environment one
with them, had no information or data to "prove" things and were quite
accurate on their predictions of the destruction of nature from our poor
ecological consciousness.
> I'm surprised you couldn't see this error in his chart, you being a
> professional astrologer and all.
Well we have no data on Seattle and that as well would be irrelevant as
an indicator of what he might or might not have said-obviously. So your
statment only reflects a total ignorance of astrological premise.
Here is the proposed version and it suits either way (supposed accurate)
The "Alternate Statement" of Chief Seattle ...
Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for
centuries untold,
and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change.
Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds.
My words are like the stars that never change.
Whatever Seattle says,
the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he
can upon the return of the sun or the seasons.
The white chief says that Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of
friendship and goodwill.
This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in
return.
His people are many. They are like the grass that covers vast prairies.
My people are few. They resemble the scattering trees of a storm-swept
plain.
The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends us word
that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough to live
comfortably.
This indeed appears just, even generous,
for the Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect,
and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an
extensive country.
There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a
wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor,
but that time long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that
are now but a mournful memory.
I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor reproach my
paleface brothers with hastening it,
as we too may have been somewhat to blame.
Youth is impulsive.
When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and
disfigure their faces with black paint,
it denotes that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel
and relentless,
and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them.
Thus it has ever been.
Thus it was when the white man began to push our forefathers ever
westward.
But let us hope that the hostilities between us may never return.
We would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the cost of their own
lives,
but old men who stay at home in times of war, and mothers who have sons
to lose, know better.
Our good father in Washington--for I presume he is now our father as
well as yours,
since King George has moved his boundaries further north--our great and
good father, I say,
sends us word that if we do as he desires he will protect us.
His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall of strength, and his
wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors,
so that our ancient enemies far to the northward -- the Haidas and
Tsimshians,
will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men.
He in reality he will be our father and we his children.
But can that ever be?
Your God is not our God!
Your God loves your people and hates mine!
He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the paleface
and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son.
But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His.
Our God, the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us.
Your God makes your people wax stronger every day.
Soon they will fill all the land.
Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide that will never
return.
The white man's God cannot love our people or He would protect them.
They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for help.
How then can we be brothers?
How can your God become our God and renew our prosperity and awaken in
us dreams of returning greatness?
If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to
His paleface children.
We never saw Him.
He gave you laws but had no word for His red children
whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill
the firmament.
No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and separate
destinies.
There is little in common between us.
To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is
hallowed ground.
You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and seemingly without
regret.
Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of
your God so that you could not forget.
The Red Man could never comprehend or remember it.
Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors --
the dreams of our old men, given them in solemn hours of the night by
the Great Spirit;
and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our
people.
Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity
as soon as they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the
stars.
They are soon forgotten and never return.
Our dead never forget this beautiful world that gave them being.
They still love its verdant valleys, its murmuring rivers, its
magnificent mountains,
sequestered vales and verdant lined lakes and bays,
and ever yearn in tender fond affection over the lonely hearted living,
and often return from the happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console,
and comfort them.
Day and night cannot dwell together.
The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning
mist flees before the morning sun.
However, your proposition seems fair
and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the
reservation you offer them.
Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White
Chief
seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense
darkness.
It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days.
They will not be many.
The Indian's night promises to be dark.
Not a single star of hope hovers above his horizon.
Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance.
Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail,
and wherever he will hear the approaching footsteps of his fell
destroyer and prepare stolidly to meet his doom,
as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching footsteps of the
hunter.
A few more moon,
a few more winters,
and not one of the descendants of the mighty hosts that once moved over
this broad land
or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit,
will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and
hopeful than yours.
But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people?
Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the
sea.
It is the order of nature, and regret is useless.
Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come,
for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to
friend,
cannot be exempt from the common destiny.
We may be brothers after all.
We will see.
We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know.
But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will
not be denied the privilege
without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors,
friends, and children.
Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people.
Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove,
has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished.
Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun
along the silent shore,
thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my
people,
and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to
their footsteps than yours,
because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors,
and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch.
Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even
the little children
who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season,
will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy
returning spirits.
And when the last Red Man shall have perished,
and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men,
these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe,
and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field,
the store, the shop, upon the highway,
or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone.
In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude.
At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you
think them deserted,
they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and
still love this beautiful land.
The White Man will never be alone.
Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not
powerless.
Dead, did I say? - There is no death, only a change of worlds.
John Reder
> Wayne Dyer wrote:
>
> > As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
> > prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
> > making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
> > rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
> > eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
> > cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
> > pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
> > all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
> > unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
> >
> > Pfffft!
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
> > Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
>
HUH??? If you use that kind of comparison to explain the male myth,
it is no wonder we men are so confused.
******When replying by email, remove mass******
******mail blocking X from return address******
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Edmond Wollmann
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> Translation: Suckers.
I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief system
or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd diligence.
If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
yourself of some up to date and in depth psychological/astrological
texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical investigation and
objective analysis the validity of astrology and its co-functioning with
psychology and many other helpful paradigms. If you would like
recommendations to start your interesting and exciting study, I would be
glad to reference some texts for you.
Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is simply my best effort to
explain -not to incite.
If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
understanding of either psychology or astrology or metaphysics I would
be more than happy to help you or assist you in your understanding in
that quest.
Thank you for your maturity in this matter,
Sincerely,
Ed
--
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
deskmerc
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33B4AD...@aznet.net>...
>Irrelevant, I studied Native American cultures in school-the point is
>the same full statements or not. I am quite aware of the controversy-the
>point was that the Native Americans considered their environment one
>with them, had no information or data to "prove" things and were quite
>accurate on their predictions of the destruction of nature from our poor
>ecological consciousness.
This turns out not to be the case.
Native Americans did indeed have data and information. They knew
full well what would happen if they hunted the buffalo to extinction,
the answer was there right in front of them. They understood
the complexities of life, they understood how their ecologies worked.
This is data, this is information.
They weren't stupid. They told the invaders "If you kill all our buffalo,
we will have nothing to live on." Duh. But they didn't care, and the
'civilized folk' killed the buffalo, drove the natives onto reservations,
and ruined a perfectly good setup for the natives.
Do you think that when the Native Americans arrived for the first
time they knew, somehow, where to find food? How to hunt buffalo?
How to survive in sometimes harsh conditions? This may come as
a suprise tp you, because you have the advantage in reading books
and learning from others mistakes, but the Native Americans
had to learn the hard way...once.
That's data. That's information. How to hunt buffalo. How to take
apart a buffalo and use all of it. They had to learn, through trial
and error, experimenting with what they had.
You are looking at the end of several thousand years of trial
and error. The results of these experiments were handed
down, orally, generation through generation.
They had plenty of proof. What they did, worked well. Proof of
it was when it didn't work, and people died.
The eskimos think the same way, if you ask them. They were,
according to their own legends, driven from the south to live
on the great ice in the north. They had a hard time of it, but they
learned if they did things a certain way, they could survive.
Trial, and error.
To say that they didn't use data or information to live insults
them all, their heritage, their history, and their memories.
msgu...@pacbell.net
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> The Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All
> > >things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not
> > >weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to
> > >the web, he does to himself. Your destiny is a mystery to us.
> The "Alternate Statement" of Chief Seattle ...
>
> Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for
> centuries untold,
> and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may change.
> Today is fair. Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds.
>
> My words are like the stars that never change.
msgu...@pacbell.net
Edmond Wollmann
Kathy Waddell wrote:
Hi Kathy!:-)
Boy the net seems to degenerate eh?
--
"I thank the lord for the people I have found....Turn around and say
good morning to the night. For unless they see the sky-but they can't
and that is why. They know not if its dark outside or light." Elton John
"Mona Lisa's and Madhatters"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
> >Kristine Campbell gop...@deltanet.com wrote:
> >> In article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.com>,
> >> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:
Reference to Kristine Campbell:
> >> ><snip> I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
> >> >USENET ARCHIVES, the ridicule is ineffective.
> >I have countered your remarks by stating that what you
> >accused
> >me of having written, was not written. The ARCHIVES prove that
> >conclusively:
Glen's Remarks:
> Translation: Bruce, as usual, has no answer that could stand the
> light of day, so he dissembles by trying to make the reader muck
> through his incomprehensible web pages <snip>
TRANSLATION, OF THE ABOVE:
The above is deception. This is how simple it is.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why"
CLICK AT: "Kristine Campbell"
Lady Nidiffer
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article <33B71D...@psicounsel.spamblock.c
om>...
>
> TRANSLATION, OF THE ABOVE:
>
> The above is deception. This is how simple it is.
>
> YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
>
> TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why"
>
> CLICK AT: "Kristine Campbell"
>
TRANSLATION, OF THE ABOVE:
I don't know where my web page is. Whenever I want to get to my
page I type:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
THEN TYPE: "Idiot the Bruce"
CLICK AT: "Idiot the Bruce"
>
Lady Nidiffer"As it is, I'm sure that all intelligent and well balanced
people, who are aware of the sickness that pervades this NG, would look to
me as a well-balanced individual, knowing you all elected me as a kook."
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
>Kristine Campbell
> gopens@*deltanet.com wrote:
>
>> In article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.com>,
>> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:
>
>> >Success at ridicule involves the use of truthful statements. Since
>> >those writing of me in the ways you describe, for the most part,
>> >lie, and I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
>> >USENET ARCHIVES, the ridicule is ineffective.
>
>> bruce, you have never tried to prove what i wrote is a lie. you calling
>> it a lie doesn't make it a lie.
>
>Nearly everyone who has access to USENET, has access to my WEB PAGES.
>On
>those pages, I have countered your remarks by stating that what you
>accused
>me of having written, was not written. The ARCHIVES prove that
>conclusively:
Translation: Bruce, as usual, has no answer that could stand the
light of day, so he dissembles by trying to make the reader muck
through his incomprehensible web pages, where, by the time you've
found what you're looking for, you've forgotten the question.
In other words, Bruce cannot show where Kristine lied.
<spam deleted>
Wayne Dyer
John Reder wrote:
> > Wayne Dyer wrote:
> >
> > > As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
> > > prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
> > > making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
> > > rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
> > > eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
> > > cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
> > > pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
> > > all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
> > > unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
> > >
> > > Pfffft!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
> > > Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
> >
>
> HUH??? If you use that kind of comparison to explain the male myth,
> it is no wonder we men are so confused.
My signature lines are chosen at random from a group I've specially chosen.
Any similarity between the content of my posts and the signature quote is
purely coincidental.
--
Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
Add the urea until it causes no further evolution of gas.
Wayne Dyer
Marsha wrote:
> Wayne Dyer wrote:
>
> > As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
> > prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
> > making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
> > rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
> > eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
> > cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
> > pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
> > all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
> > unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
> >
> > Pfffft!
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
> > Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
>
> don't you go to another restaurant.
Interesting idea. When I see someone being served a plate of rotten
food I'll just keep my mouth shut, eh? When I see ads on TV I should just
ignore them? When people are talking about it, I should just butt out?
When I see people being fleeced I'm supposed to bite my tongue in the name
of "free trade" and "free speech"?
> Is your name really Wayne Dyer????
Yes, but I'm not the guy you probably think I am. Since I was born,
I've gone by my middle name of "Wayne". My first initial is D. for
David, but I refuse to be called "D. Wayne" because that sounds like
an exaggerated pronounciation of Dwayne.
I get a lot of misdirected email, but that's life.
Kathy Waddell
>Hi Kathy!:-)
>Boy the net seems to degenerate eh?
>--
>"I thank the lord for the people I have found....Turn around and say
>good morning to the night. For unless they see the sky-but they can't
>and that is why. They know not if its dark outside or light." Elton John
>"Mona Lisa's and Madhatters"
Hi Ed,
What newsgroup are reading this thread in? I'm over in
talk.religion.newage. Do you know who started this thread
crossposted to so many groups? I think crossposting has
lead to the deteriation of the newsgroups. Each newsgroup
has its own mind-set and assumptions and culture. It takes
people who are confident in their own beliefs and can accept
divesity of beliefs to be able to have a meaningful discussion
between newsgroups. But then we are often only interested in
preaching and not discussing.
Regards,
Have fun!
=-Kathy->
Edmond Wollmann
Kathy Waddell wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:31:28 -0700,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >Hi Kathy!:-)
> >Boy the net seems to degenerate eh?
--
> >"I thank the lord for the people I have found....Turn around and say
> >good morning to the night. For unless they see the sky-but they can't
> >and that is why. They know not if its dark outside or light." Elton John
> >"Mona Lisa's and Madhatters"
> Hi Ed,
HI!:-)
> What newsgroup are reading this thread in?
Alt.astrology.
> I'm over in
> talk.religion.newage. Do you know who started this thread
> crossposted to so many groups?
Well its hard to say-probably me! But it is not posted the way I started
it if it is. I admit I crosspost -but usually to like minded groups and
they share back-and no problem. However some get in and add stuff like
this one has alt.fan.art-bell somebody added-and if the cynics get in
from sci.astro or sci.skeptic they spend enourmous amounts of time
trying to quell their fears that others might think there are other
realities besides theirs-and that where the trouble starts. It wouldn't
be bad except they think sarcastic remarks to persons of a different
belief somehow automatically qualifies as an argument:-) Usually ends up
just cutting off the newsgroups to move the thread out because they
think they are saving the world from evil empires or something. Fact of
the matter is they just don't know what they are talking about and end
up looking foolish.
> I think crossposting has
> lead to the deteriation of the newsgroups.
I don't if they are related in some way, I think it helps and I have
found alot of interesting like minded people from totally different
approaches-and things that have helped me in my thinking. Its when they
go across conflicting belief systems such as alt.religion and
sci.skeptic or something-these two polarities fear each other so much it
turns into a sarcasm brawl or match with really nothing constructive.
> Each newsgroup
> has its own mind-set and assumptions and culture. It takes
> people who are confident in their own beliefs and can accept
> divesity of beliefs to be able to have a meaningful discussion
> between newsgroups. But then we are often only interested in
> preaching and not discussing.
Well I think all truths serve and are integratable but yes-it takes a
true skeptical and critical and searching mentality free of its own
fears to do so. One must be aware of their own psyche and its bias and
predjudice based on these fears to proceed to learn-like children do-we
must unlearn much of what society has taught us... our focus on the fear
of "failure" this is what stops many from learning new things-that and
the fear of being judged or "wrong". My quote by Jung at the bottom
addresses this issue.
> Regards,
> Have fun!
You too, hope you are well:-)
--
"The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
from the levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
than by projection."
Carl Gustave Jung Collected works, The Type Problem in Classical and
Medieval thought, Vol 6, page 41.
Wayne Dyer
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Wayne Dyer wrote:
>
> > Dan Pressnell wrote:
> > > >Or do you make the resturant PROVE the steak will be good
> > > >before you taste it?
>
> > > If restaurants were as rife with fraud as psychics and astrologers are,
> > > YOU BET!
>
> > When the waiter brings the steak and I can see WITH MY OWN TWO EYES that
> > it's uncooked and crawling with maggots, I'd say it's been proven
>
> Oh I see, sort of like the E-coli that killed a few people?
Your point being? I could test for E. coli, but it still woldn't affect
the *taste*, which was what I was likening it to.
--
Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
Heat the tube in a "bomb furnace" at 150-175 degrees until
everything has dissolved to a clear green liquid.
DrPostman
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>Well its hard to say-probably me! But it is not posted the way I started
>it if it is. I admit I crosspost -but usually to like minded groups and
>they share back-and no problem. However some get in and add stuff like
>this one has alt.fan.art-bell somebody added-
At some point EVERYTHING ends up being crossposted
to alt.fan.art-bell eventually. It is some sort of new law of
physics.
--
Yes, Raymond Kaszooski is a liar
Jim Rogers
[Newsgroups and follow-ups trimmed]
Marsha wrote:
> chatterbox wrote:
> don't you see that some people don't necessarily care about
> > bashing YOU but instead feel that you're preying on naive people,
> Speak for yourself only.
It was clear to me that he was doing so, expressing an opinion.
> > whose
> > money could be better spent improving themselves in concrete ways.
> It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your naivete;
it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money for
quack services.
...
> > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in their sig."
> But not in their minds?
Absolutely; you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly lap
up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it or what only
reinforces your preconceived notions. Only with full freedom of exchange
of ideas and freedom to make up your own mind is skepticism possible.
Jim
Kathy Waddell
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:05:50 -0700,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> . . .
> Well I think all truths serve and are integratable but yes-it takes a
>true skeptical and critical and searching mentality free of its own
>fears to do so. One must be aware of their own psyche and its bias and
>predjudice based on these fears to proceed to learn-like children do-we
>must unlearn much of what society has taught us... our focus on the fear
>of "failure" this is what stops many from learning new things-that and
>the fear of being judged or "wrong".
Yes, I think we learn fear of failure as part of our present
educational system. The whole system is geared to producing
workers and not necessarily in promoting learning. Kids learn
that it's not good to get wrong answers. They have to get
good grades in elementry school so they can do well in middle
school and then high school and then college so they can get
good jobs to make money and buy happiness. They are taught to
pass tests but any real enjoyment of learning and exploring
is not emphasized.
It's difficult for people to break out of that kind of long-term
conditioning. When we can only like and accept ourselves when we
are right, we either beat up on ourselves when we are wrong or
we hide from ourselves any evidence that might prove that we are.
Since this universe tends rowards balance, we'll be right only
half the time. That means the other half of the time we are
miserable and/or conflicted. Once we realized that we can not
be right all the time and we are OK with our failures, we can
know the joy of freedom from the former tyrany of fear.
> . . .My quote by Jung at the bottom
>addresses this issue.
> . . .
>--
> "The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
>knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
>basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
>different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
>fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
>nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
>sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
>from the levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
>at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
>attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
>different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
>oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
>than by projection."
>Carl Gustave Jung Collected works, The Type Problem in Classical and
>Medieval thought, Vol 6, page 41.
Have fun!
=-Kathy->
dpre...@ns.vvm.com
In article <5pa23g$2...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
I'm...@home.here wrote:
> >they share back-and no problem. However some get in and add stuff like
> >this one has alt.fan.art-bell somebody added-
>
> At some point EVERYTHING ends up being crossposted
> to alt.fan.art-bell eventually. It is some sort of new law of
> physics.
Or a law of the psychic BDK.
(Good one, huh?)
Dan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
>Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>
>> KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> wrote:
>> >Kristine Campbell gop...@deltanet.com wrote:
>> >> In article <33B0D0...@psicounsel.spamblock.com>,
>> >> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com wrote:
>
> Reference to Kristine Campbell:
>
>> >> ><snip> I've proven the lies in my posts and reference to the
>> >> >USENET ARCHIVES, the ridicule is ineffective.
>
>> >I have countered your remarks by stating that what you
>> >accused
>> >me of having written, was not written. The ARCHIVES prove that
>> >conclusively:
>
> Glen's Remarks:
>
>> Translation: Bruce, as usual, has no answer that could stand the
>> light of day, so he dissembles by trying to make the reader muck
>> through his incomprehensible web pages <snip>
>
> TRANSLATION, OF THE ABOVE:
>
> The above is deception. This is how simple it is.
>
> YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
>
> TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why"
>
> CLICK AT: "Kristine Campbell"
Heh. Kook the Kettlebanger proves my point once again. You're too
easy, Brucie.
Jim Rogers
Just so Ed can't pretend to his adulating throngs that he managed to get
the last word with these patronizing insults, I cross-posted this back
to a.f.a-b so Glen will be sure to see his reply. It is a real mystery
where Ed gets his cross-posting rationale and decides what NGs to add or
snip, rarely even mentioning that he's altered the NG list.
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>
> > Translation: Suckers.
>
> I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
> wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
> psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
> subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief system
> or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd diligence.
>
> If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
> yourself of some up to date and in depth psychological/astrological
> texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical investigation and
> objective analysis the validity of astrology and its co-functioning with
> psychology and many other helpful paradigms. If you would like
> recommendations to start your interesting and exciting study, I would be
> glad to reference some texts for you.
>
> Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
> yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
> questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
> judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is simply my best effort to
> explain -not to incite.
>
> --
> "In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
> mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
> except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
> objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
> Lincoln Barnett
dr. digger
John Reder <xjr...@tiac.net> wrote:
> So we are all fully informed regarding your credentials in the
>signature file, could you elaborate. We know from others who went and
>checked on your "old" signature file that you failed to qualify for the
>astronomy degree you were seeking. Exactly what did the university say
>specifically was not up to par about your work when they rejected you
>for your astronomy degree? Was it general lack of knowledge or failure
>to present your point in a clear manner? We don't know exactly the why
>you failed in your chosen field, if it was lack of knowledge or
>inability to present your ideas, only that you did not succeed.
As opposed to, say, the psychic field, or the a$trology
business, in which no credentials at all are needed?
dr. digger
Marsha
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Jerry Watson wrote (to elected KotM BDK):
>
> > > How do you propose to demonstrate your claims of paranormal powers?
>
> > In service to those who desire it-who then decide its value.
>
> I presume this is why alt.usenet.kooks
Do you know how to check to see who crossposted what? Maybe your
browser works differently, but at the beginning of each post under the
list of newsgroups it says "References" & you can click on any of those
numbers to see who originally put a specific newsgroup there. Clicking
on "1" in this thread shows B.D.K. started this thread & included the
"kooks" newsgroup. I see you didn't delete it either.
> was included in your cross-post
> list.
> Jim
Marsha
Marsha
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> [Newsgroups and follow-ups trimmed]
>
> Marsha wrote:
> > chatterbox wrote:
>
> > don't you see that some people don't necessarily care about
> > > bashing YOU but instead feel that you're preying on naive people,
>
> > Speak for yourself only.
>
> It was clear to me that he was doing so, expressing an opinion.
Looks to me like this person was speaking for the so-called "naive"
people. Good way to get allies. Bash one & call the others naive:)
> > > whose
> > > money could be better spent improving themselves in concrete ways.
>
> > It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
>
> This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your > naivete;
Assuming I am naive, who are YOU to relieve me of it?!?!?!?! Maybe I'm
not naive. Did that possibility ever occur to you?
> it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money > > for
> quack services.
No-one is trying to relieve me of my money for quack services or any
other kind of services. No astrologer has ever forced or tried to force
anything on me. (which I can't say for most of the so-called "skeptics"
posting here). In fact, I don't always get my questions about astrology
answered, I think maybe because they're busy following these arguments.
But, then I think that's part of the idea of these anti-astrologers
posting here isn't it?
> ...
> > > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in their sig."
>
> > But not in their minds?
>
> Absolutely;
So you're agreeing with this statement?: "I support the right of anyone
to put whatever they want in their signature but NOT the right to put
whatever they want in their minds"?
> you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly > lap
> up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it
Now you're assuming things about me. You have a very naive view of the
situation. You obviously don't know me. People that know me would
laugh if they heard someone describe me in this way :). I've given no
impression in any of my posts that could lead someone to that
conclusion.
> or what only
> reinforces your preconceived notions.
...unless of course you believe that just because I think astrology
works, then I'm naive & "lap up anything I hear the first time". But
then that would obviously be a preconceived notion, wouldn't it?
> Only with full freedom of
> exchange
> of ideas and freedom to make up your own mind is skepticism possible.
You just said I don't have the right to put whatever I want in my mind.
This is a contradiction. Which do you mean?
I certainly don't see you as a skeptic, looking at what you've said
here. Here's what I see:
A *Predator* who believes astrologers are like himself & feels he needs
to compete with them for the *Prey* (people who use astrology, but
aren't professional astrologers). But, WHO are the ones that have been
trying to force their ideas on the "naive" astrology buffs? Or, maybe
I'm wrong. Maybe you are also *Prey*--a naive person who has just
accepted what someone else has told you without opening the door to see
for yourself.
Alt.astrology is a newsgroup for people interested in astrology. Why
have self-proclaimed skeptics been posting against it? Sci.skeptic is a
newsgroup for skeptics. I've always believed a skeptic is a person that
doubts but has not made a definite decision on a subject. That would
mean asking questions, but not these authoritarian assitudes that come
from the people calling themselves skeptics. If this *isn't* the case,
then please let me know, & I'll delete it from any posts I reply to in
the future. OR, start a new newsgroup--alt.predator or
sci.anti-astrology so as not to confuse the meaning of the word
"skeptic".
>
> Jim
Marsha
Jim Rogers
Marsha wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Marsha wrote:
> > > chatterbox wrote:
> > > don't you see that some people don't necessarily care about
> > > > bashing YOU but instead feel that you're preying on naive people,
> > > Speak for yourself only.
> > It was clear to me that he was doing so, expressing an opinion.
> Looks to me like this person was speaking for the so-called "naive"
> people. Good way to get allies. Bash one & call the others naive:)
I didn't say it was _nice_. ;-)
> > > > whose
> > > > money could be better spent improving themselves in concrete ways.
> > > It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
> > This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your > naivete;
> Assuming I am naive, who are YOU to relieve me of it?!?!?!?! Maybe I'm
> not naive. Did that possibility ever occur to you?
Of course! Haven't you notice that I've been incessantly asking
questions, and not simply making flat declarations of "truth"?
> > it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money
> > for quack services.
> No-one is trying to relieve me of my money for quack services or any
> other kind of services. No astrologer has ever forced or tried to force
> anything on me. (which I can't say for most of the so-called "skeptics"
> posting here). In fact, I don't always get my questions about astrology
> answered, I think maybe because they're busy following these arguments.
> But, then I think that's part of the idea of these anti-astrologers
> posting here isn't it?
To engage the proponents in debate? Yes; to interfere with you finding
out what you want? Not at all.
> > > > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in their sig."
> > > But not in their minds?
> > Absolutely;
> So you're agreeing with this statement?: "I support the right of anyone
> to put whatever they want in their signature but NOT the right to put
> whatever they want in their minds"?
This is an example of a very unfortunate limitation of the language, and
I shouldn't have tried such a terse answer. Had I said, "Absolutely
not," you'd've responded the same way, right? I meant to fully agree
with you, that everyone has an inalienable right to put whatever they
want into their minds; it's about the most fundamental right that there
can be.
> > you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly
> lap up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it
> Now you're assuming things about me. You have a very naive view of the
> situation. You obviously don't know me. People that know me would
> laugh if they heard someone describe me in this way :). I've given no
> impression in any of my posts that could lead someone to that
> conclusion.
I'll simply take your word for this.
> > or what only
> > reinforces your preconceived notions.
> ...unless of course you believe that just because I think astrology
> works, then I'm naive & "lap up anything I hear the first time". But
> then that would obviously be a preconceived notion, wouldn't it?
Consider it a prediction. ;-)
> > Only with full freedom of
> > exchange
> > of ideas and freedom to make up your own mind is skepticism possible.
> You just said I don't have the right to put whatever I want in my mind.
> This is a contradiction. Which do you mean?
I hope this is clear now.
> I certainly don't see you as a skeptic, looking at what you've said
> here. Here's what I see:
>
> A *Predator* who believes astrologers are like himself & feels he needs
> to compete with them for the *Prey* (people who use astrology, but
> aren't professional astrologers). But, WHO are the ones that have been
> trying to force their ideas on the "naive" astrology buffs? Or, maybe
> I'm wrong. Maybe you are also *Prey*--a naive person who has just
> accepted what someone else has told you without opening the door to see
> for yourself.
Very strange; what would I gain by "preying" here? I'm after spreading
rationality at the expense of verifiable irrationality, and I hold that
the basic claims of astrology are verifiably irrational and false. The
rampant growth of irrationality is a pox on humanity that has cost us
big-time throughout history, such as the Dark Ages which lasted
_centuries_, and even nowadays in religious fanaticism. I am only
questioning the verifiable claims of astrology here, not any aesthetic
beauty you or anyone else might find in it; there is beauty to be found
in many ancient myths, but that doesn't make it rational to accept them
as truth, and one doesn't have to do so in order to appreciate them.
> Alt.astrology is a newsgroup for people interested in astrology.
Only positive opinions need apply? What were you saying, above, about
preconceived notions? I _am_ "interested" in astrology, but obviously my
interest is quite different from yours.
> Why
> have self-proclaimed skeptics been posting against it? Sci.skeptic is a
> newsgroup for skeptics. I've always believed a skeptic is a person that
> doubts but has not made a definite decision on a subject. That would
> mean asking questions, ...
You don't seem to have noticed that that is exactly what I've been
doing.
Jim
Marsha
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > Marsha wrote:
> > > > chatterbox wrote:
>
> > > > don't you see that some people don't necessarily care about
> > > > > bashing YOU but instead feel that you're preying on naive people,
>
> > > > Speak for yourself only.
>
> > > It was clear to me that he was doing so, expressing an opinion.
>
> > Looks to me like this person was speaking for the so-called "naive"
> > people. Good way to get allies. Bash one & call the others naive:)
>
> I didn't say it was _nice_. ;-)
My point was s(he) was speaking for others.
>
> > > > > whose
> > > > > money could be better spent improving themselves in concrete ways.
>
> > > > It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
>
> > > This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your > naivete;
>
> > Assuming I am naive, who are YOU to relieve me of it?!?!?!?! Maybe I'm
> > not naive. Did that possibility ever occur to you?
>
> Of course! Haven't you notice that I've been incessantly asking
> questions, and not simply making flat declarations of "truth"?
Sorry, I haven't in this post. You responded to my response to someone
else, and it appeared to me that you had the same point of view.
>
> > > it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money
> > > for quack services.
>
> > No-one is trying to relieve me of my money for quack services or any
> > other kind of services. No astrologer has ever forced or tried to force
> > anything on me. (which I can't say for most of the so-called "skeptics"
> > posting here). In fact, I don't always get my questions about astrology
> > answered, I think maybe because they're busy following these arguments.
> > But, then I think that's part of the idea of these anti-astrologers
> > posting here isn't it?
>
> To engage the proponents in debate? Yes; to interfere with you finding
> out what you want? Not at all.
>
> > > > > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in their sig."
>
> > > > But not in their minds?
Someone other than you made that statement. I understand now that you
don't agree with it.
> that everyone has an inalienable right to put whatever they
> want into their minds; it's about the most fundamental right that > there
> can be.
>
> > > you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly
> > lap up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it
>
> > Now you're assuming things about me. You have a very naive view of the
> > situation. You obviously don't know me. People that know me would
> > laugh if they heard someone describe me in this way :). I've given no
> > impression in any of my posts that could lead someone to that
> > conclusion.
>
> I'll simply take your word for this.
>
> > > or what only
> > > reinforces your preconceived notions.
>
> > ...unless of course you believe that just because I think astrology
> > works, then I'm naive & "lap up anything I hear the first time". But
> > then that would obviously be a preconceived notion, wouldn't it?
>
> Consider it a prediction. ;-)
:)
>
> > > Only with full freedom of
> > > exchange
> > > of ideas and freedom to make up your own mind is skepticism possible.
>
> > I certainly don't see you as a skeptic, looking at what you've said
> > here. Here's what I see:
> >
> > A *Predator* who believes astrologers are like himself & feels he needs
> > to compete with them for the *Prey* (people who use astrology, but
> > aren't professional astrologers). But, WHO are the ones that have been
> > trying to force their ideas on the "naive" astrology buffs? Or, maybe
> > I'm wrong. Maybe you are also *Prey*--a naive person who has just
> > accepted what someone else has told you without opening the door to see
> > for yourself.
>
> Very strange; what would I gain by "preying" here?
"Prey" was mentioned in the first sentence of the original post that I
responded to. Since you appeared to defend that responder I attributed
the same opinions to you. But I could ask the same question about
astrologers--what are they preying on? All I see is them giving
information on astrology, & answering questions for people who have
asked for help (& arguing with skeptics)--nothing that would look like
they were preying on anyone.
> I'm after spreading
> rationality at the expense of verifiable irrationality, and I hold > that
> the basic claims of astrology are verifiably irrational and false. The
> rampant growth of irrationality is a pox on humanity that has cost us
> big-time throughout history, such as the Dark Ages which lasted
> _centuries_, and even nowadays in religious fanaticism. I am only
> questioning the verifiable claims of astrology here, not any aesthetic
> beauty you or anyone else might find in it; there is beauty to be > found
> in many ancient myths, but that doesn't make it rational to accept > them
> as truth, and one doesn't have to do so in order to appreciate them.
>
> > Alt.astrology is a newsgroup for people interested in astrology.
>
> Only positive opinions need apply? What were you saying, above, about
> preconceived notions? I _am_ "interested" in astrology, but obviously my
> interest is quite different from yours.
Now, here is a point where I'll agree that I was naive :) :) But I was
relieved of it very quickly thanks to the skeptics! :)
>
> > Why
> > have self-proclaimed skeptics been posting against it? Sci.skeptic is a
> > newsgroup for skeptics. I've always believed a skeptic is a person that
> > doubts but has not made a definite decision on a subject. That would
> > mean asking questions, ...
>
> You don't seem to have noticed that that is exactly what I've been
> doing.
But with the motive to discredit it? Or out of genuine interest that
there may be something to it?
>
> Jim
Marsha
Earl<nospam>
CONGRATULATIONS
TarlaStar
dwd...@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer) wrote:
>John Reder wrote:
>> > Wayne Dyer wrote:
>> >
>> > > As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or anyone
>> > > prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me. They're
>> > > making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
>> > > rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover our
>> > > eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York Strip,
>> > > cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with fresh-ground
>> > > pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
>> > > all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
>> > > unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
>> > >
>> > > Pfffft!
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
>> > > Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
>> >
>>
>> HUH??? If you use that kind of comparison to explain the male myth,
>> it is no wonder we men are so confused.
>My signature lines are chosen at random from a group I've specially chosen.
>Any similarity between the content of my posts and the signature quote is
>purely coincidental.
Oh yeah? Well what *I* want to know is how the hell you get a Caesar
salad without anchovies? That...and the raw egg are what MAKE it
Caesar salad.
Tarla
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
Glen Quarnstrom
Jim Rogers <jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
>Just so Ed can't pretend to his adulating throngs that he managed to get
>the last word with these patronizing insults, I cross-posted this back
>to a.f.a-b so Glen will be sure to see his reply. It is a real mystery
Thanks. I'll take this opportunity to challenge the woo-woo crowd to
put up or shut up.
>where Ed gets his cross-posting rationale and decides what NGs to add or
>snip, rarely even mentioning that he's altered the NG list.
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>>
>> > Translation: Suckers.
>>
>> I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
>> wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
>> psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
>> subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief system
>> or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd diligence.
Yeah, right. So can picking pockets, but that's a bit more dangerous.
>> If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
>> yourself of some up to date and in depth psychological/astrological
>> texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical investigation and
>> objective analysis the validity of astrology and its co-functioning with
>> psychology and many other helpful paradigms. If you would like
>> recommendations to start your interesting and exciting study, I would be
>> glad to reference some texts for you.
No thanks, I'm not interested in learning a scam.
>> Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
>> yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
>> questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
>> judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is simply my best effort to
>> explain -not to incite.
Uh-huh. Right. You betcha.
>> If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
>> understanding of either psychology or astrology or metaphysics I would
>> be more than happy to help you or assist you in your understanding in
>> that quest.
OK. You asked for it, you got it. I was born in Daggett, Michigan on
Jan 20, 1935 at 4:14 AM. Please use astrology and/or psychology
and/or metaphysics to tell me something that's happened in my life
that's not easily looked up in some database. If you get enough
accuracy in seeing my past, I'll give you a shot at predicting my
future.
Here are a few general dates to narrow it down for you. September
1949. July 1951. July 1958. June 1959. November 1962. May 1966.
March 1976. July 1995.
>> Thank you for your maturity in this matter,
Thank you for allowing me to expose a scammer.
>> Sincerely,
>> Ed
Sceptically, Glen
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> Jim Rogers <jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
> >>Edmond Wollmann woll...@aznet.net wrote:
> >> <snip> glad to reference some texts for you.
> No thanks, I'm not interested in learning a scam.
> >> Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
> >> yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
> >> questioning in the search for truth
And, as old as you are Glen, you must still be a child, unintelligent
and
*MUCH* less than objectively questioning in the search for truth.
> >> If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
> >> understanding of either psychology or astrology or metaphysics I would
> >> be more than happy to help you or assist you in your understanding in
> >> that quest.
The above offer, which you obviously did not comprehend, was not about
birthdates, though if Ed is willing, he may decide to take you up on
your offer to delineate your astrological chart.
You do have a problem, quite often, comprehending what people write.
> OK. You asked for it, you got it. I was born in Daggett, Michigan on
> Jan 20, 1935 at 4:14 AM. <snip>
However, it's only in that deluded mind of yours that he asked.
> >> Thank you for your maturity in this matter,
> Thank you for allowing me to expose a scammer.
You have exposed yourself.
You have declared, with no facts, and no use of what little reasoning
ability
you have previously shown, that he is a "scammer."
> Sceptically, Glen
You have identified yourself as a "skeptic," and your writing which
shows you adhere to the doctrine of a cult, that all people who
earn money with psychic or astrology services are "scammers," that,
along with your other writing, proves you to be one of them.
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
type: "skeptics what they do and why"
You have been "knighted" so-called, and not been placed as a
"SKEP-TI-CULT"
member. Dan Pressnell has been placed as a "SKEP-TI-CULT" member by one
of
these clowns who decides upon this "mickey-mouse" childish awarding, but
the bufoon-king, Tim Hill, will not "knight" him.
I hope you obtain all the false sense of self-worth that this
identification
with fools gives you. You may as well get "something" from it.
However,
as I hope for all living beings, I would have you free your mind from
such
illusion, at some point, so you could be fulfilled and happy.
Edmond Wollmann
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
<sarcasm snipped><emotive fallacious spin snipped>
<insert> Your assertions do not match current thinking in academia.
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view." ^^^^^^^^^^
5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
combinations, and from that like any other data you can infer what you
wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self efficacy concerns, and
through astrological and psychological awareness finds levels of stress
factors associated with it that interfere with developmental growth
diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced, neither the number
above, nor studies a mile long, would create sufficient developmental
tension for either of us to attempt to fix something that isn't broken,
only so persons so needing this evidence in order to make the same
progress, can supposedly let go of these strictures and live their lives
with as much trust as those of us who realize the futility of such
numbers. Cynics will not regardless of "factors" anyway because it is a
matter of belief. It would therefore be foolish to ignore sure results
experienced with such clients in order to chase the obviously futile and
speculative arguments with cynical minds. Analytical discernment begs
for efficiency. I therefore respectfully beg to differ and offer sincere
success in your future search for truths. There is no one truth EXCEPT
that THE truth is the composition of all truths. Absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence-it may be a difference in root assumptions.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
We don't live by logic and facts we live by trust-if you disagree with
this premise, provide the factual basis and logical reason and/or
purposes for living. If you can't produce any I suggest you stop living
because there is no evidence or "facts" available to justify and
quantify doing it anymore.
Thank you for your contributions.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles
or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and
sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
Please upgrade your knowledge base.
Regards,
Ed
--
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
Lady Nidiffer
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article <33BEAE...@psicounsel.spamblock.c
om>...
>Lady Nidiffer wnidiffe@[delete this for e-mail].bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article
>> >Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>> >> >>Edmond Wollmann woll...@aznet.net wrote:
>
>BDK to GLEN:
>> >You have declared, with no facts, and no use of what
>> >little reasoning ability
>> >you have previously shown, that he is a "scammer."
>
>> So what else would you call someone that takes money
>> from people and they get nothing in return?
>
>Well, what would someone reading this call you, who asserts
>that anyone who takes money from people for astrological
>services, gives them nothing in return.
So what do you give your customers in return for their money?
I submit, that it is worthless poppycock.
Therefore, they get nothing for their money.
>
>Most would consider you biased, and would wonder what investigation
>you had engaged in to come to this conclusion. Then again, that
I;ve come to this conclusion from life experiences and reading your and
your "ilk"s
drivel here on these newsgroups.
>being such an unusual thing to conclude, one would wonder if some
>group of people with books, magazines, and perhaps, in-person
>meetings had not unduly influenced you, so much that you had
>felt no need, or power within your own will, to investigate yourself.
I don't investigate myself, I let my husband do that for me.
>
>> >More on this cult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7945/bdk_doo.html>
click at
"Loonies"
Lady Nidiffer
"Yes, when you see my name in a post, you can deduce beforehand, that
it will be, according to the filters in your mind, hypocrisy."BDK
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Lady Nidiffer wnid...@spambam.bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article
> >Lady Nidiffer wnidiffe@[delete this for e-mail].bcpl.lib.md.us wrote:
> >> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote in article
> >> >Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> >> >> >>Edmond Wollmann woll...@aznet.net wrote:
> >BDK to GLEN:
> >> >You have declared, with no facts, and no use of what
> >> >little reasoning ability
> >> >you have previously shown, that he is a "scammer."
> >> So what else would you call someone that takes money
> >> from people and they get nothing in return?
> >Well, what would someone reading this call you, who asserts
> >that anyone who takes money from people for astrological
> >services, gives them nothing in return.
> So what do you give your customers in return for their money?
> I submit, that it is worthless poppycock.
> Therefore, they get nothing for their money.
You "submit" that it is "worthless poppycock." Who are you to "submit"
anything about my business? What motivates you to do this "submitting"
of hypothesis? Are you trying to *save* humanity from what you think
are monsters loose on the world?
In short, what's your *PROBLEM* lady?
Bruce Daniel Kettler
> ><sarcasm snipped><emotive fallacious spin snipped>
> Translation: Ed cannot meet my simple, straightforward challenge to
> demonstrate that astrology or psychic abilities can do anything other
> than bleed money from the gullible, so he snips my entire post <snip>
Translation:
Glen doesn't have a clue as to why Ed Wollmann snipped it.
Let me offer some suggestions:
1. He doesn't care what you think of his lack of demonstration.
2. He doesn't want to waste his time answering your silliness.
3. He never offered to construct your astrological chart.
> thinking that nobody will notice that this particular emperor wears no
> clothes.
4. Probably no-one thinks the "emperor wore no clothes," and
even if so, he doesn't care.
> ><insert> Your assertions do not match current thinking in academia.
> I don't give a rat's ass what you say is the "current thinking in
> academia." Everybody knows that there's a lot of nonsense floating
> around in those ivory towers, particularly in the woo-woo "sciences"
> that you're promoting. I'm interested in Real World results, which
> have never been demonstrated to the satisfaction of any rational and
> objective observer.
Glen, you don't know that they were never demonstrated.
> <verbose, lengthy, and probably insulting psycho-babbling obfuscation
> deleted unread, after a brief scan shows that it has nothing to do
> with the fact that people peddling paranormal pap are doing nothing
> more than separating suckers from their money.
Edmond just copied and pasted it anyway.
"...doing nothing more than separating suckers
from their money" is just your allegation, meaning
absolutely nothing to most people.
<silliness deleted>
Edmond Wollmann
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> Translation: Ed cannot meet my simple, straightforward challenge to
> demonstrate that astrology or psychic abilities can do anything other
> than bleed money from the gullible, so he snips my entire post,
> thinking that nobody will notice that this particular emperor wears no
> clothes.
> I don't give a rat's ass what you say is the "current thinking in
> academia." Everybody knows that there's a lot of nonsense floating
> around in those ivory towers, particularly in the woo-woo "sciences"
> that you're promoting. I'm interested in Real World results, which
> have never been demonstrated to the satisfaction of any rational and
> objective observer.
> <verbose, lengthy, and probably insulting psycho-babbling obfuscation
> deleted unread, after a brief scan shows that it has nothing to do
> with the fact that people peddling paranormal pap are doing nothing
> more than separating suckers from their money. If they really had any
> such predictive powers, they could get filthy rich by much simpler
> methods than playing carnie games with rubes>
> Put up or shut up, fraud.
> P.S. My innate psychic ability allows me to confidently predict that
> Ed will do neither.
--
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
Dan Pressnell
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
Hmmm.... that's the business of astrologers, isn't it?
Dan
Ian Lowery
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>Snip!
No he didn't, and that is not the way to write "snip" on Usenet.
Seeing that you didn't quote Bruce, why did you use the term "wrote"?
---[snip]---
>B) If you are going to continue to allow these people to be so powerful
>in your life could you please remove alt.astrology from the postings?
How about you stop useing alt.consciousness as the repository for your
irrelevent spams?
>I really don't care what these folks think
Your general styles of presentation and sentence construction, your
misuse of punctuation and grammar, and your spamming would indicate
that you don't care about what anybody thinks.
>and I know the others here don't either.
Back to playing God, eh Ed?
Would you mind translating this twaddle into English?
>C) You might wish to think about not giving your power to defining
>cynics all day-for to define them so solidly and then not act on what
>you prefer and not acting on what you don't, generally places them MORE
>solidly in your reality and creates them to be a bigger obstacle than
>they really are.
Ian Lowery
(Remove the anti-spam "xx" from the e-mail address if you wish to write to me)
Ian Lowery
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Kathy Waddell wrote:
>> I'm over in talk.religion.newage. Do you know who started this thread
>> crossposted to so many groups?
>Well its hard to say-probably me!
Why, do you have a speech problem?
> ... I admit I crosspost
What an astute observation. You cross post to 20 groups at a time.
>-but usually to like minded groups and they share back-and no problem.
If you had any respect for others, you would spend the time it takes
to write coherent English sentences.
>However some get in and add stuff like this one has alt.fan.art-bell
>somebody added-and if the cynics get in from sci.astro or sci.skeptic
>they spend enourmous amounts of time trying to quell their fears that
>others might think there are other realities besides theirs
Classic projection on your part, Eddy dear, classic projection.
Your fear is that you will get caught out for your pseudo-science.
>-and that [SIC!] where the trouble starts.
Yes, because they can easily take you beyond your puny intellectual
limits.
>It wouldn't be bad except they think sarcastic remarks to persons of
>a different belief somehow automatically qualifies as an argument:-)
Whereas *you* simply ignore the substance of an argument, make
personal remarks about the author, and then proffer a tangential
response by way of extensive quotes.
>Usually ends up just cutting off the newsgroups to move the thread out
>because they think they are saving the world from evil empires or
>something.
Usually? Statistics please? Examples?
Yes Eddy, I know they are not valid sentences, but you set the
precedent around here.
>Fact of the matter is they just don't know what they are talking about
and of course you do.
<ROTF pissing self laughing>
>and end up looking foolish.
Of course an ego such as yours could never admit to looking foolish.
>> I think crossposting has lead to the deteriation of the newsgroups.
I agree, and your 259 line post: "The Moon and Psychological Reigning
Needs", and your 900 line gif, posted to 20 news groups, is a prime
example.
>Well I think all truths serve and are integratable
As long as the truths aren't the overwhelming bulk of scientific
opinion which happen to be contrary to your statment about the
physical universe. If somebody writes an informed critique of the
models involved, your method is to integrate it by saying nothing
about it, instead, commenting about the author about whom you know
nothing.
Seeing as you like advising people to get out of newsgroups, how about
you piss off from from alt.consciousness?
CYA Lovery Dovey
Ian
Avital Pilpel
Wayne Dyer wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
> > Wayne Dyer wrote:
> >
> > > As a skeptic, I do not demand that psychics or astrologers or
> anyone
> > > prove their claims *before* such a claim is presented to me.
> They're
> > > making claims all the time, just like a waiter bringing me a
> > > rotten steak. Then they ask that if we skeptics would just cover
> our
> > > eyes and plug up our noses, they'll bring us each a nice New York
> Strip,
> > > cooked medium, with a baked potato and Caesar salad with
> fresh-ground
> > > pepper (no anchovies, please), a basket of hot sourdough bread and
>
> > > all the beer we can drink. When we say NO, we're accused of being
>
> > > unfair, prejudiced, and oppressive.
> > >
> > > Pfffft!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com ::
> http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
> > > Recontextualizing the male myth since 1963
> >
> > No-one's asking you to believe anything or offering you anything, so
> why
> > don't you go to another restaurant.
>
> Interesting idea. When I see someone being served a plate of rotten
> food I'll just keep my mouth shut, eh? When I see ads on TV I should
> just
> ignore them? When people are talking about it, I should just butt
> out?
> When I see people being fleeced I'm supposed to bite my tongue in the
> name
> of "free trade" and "free speech"?
>
> > Is your name really Wayne Dyer????
>
> Yes, but I'm not the guy you probably think I am. Since I was born,
> I've gone by my middle name of "Wayne". My first initial is D. for
> David, but I refuse to be called "D. Wayne" because that sounds like
> an exaggerated pronounciation of Dwayne.
>
> I get a lot of misdirected email, but that's life.
>
> --
> Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
>
> Add the urea until it causes no further evolution of gas.
I must be missing something... Who is the _other_ Wayne Dyer?
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Avital Pilpel
Marsha wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> >
> > [Newsgroups and follow-ups trimmed]
> >
> > Marsha wrote:
> > > chatterbox wrote:
> >
> > > don't you see that some people don't necessarily care about
> > > > bashing YOU but instead feel that you're preying on naive
> people,
> >
> > > Speak for yourself only.
> >
> > It was clear to me that he was doing so, expressing an opinion.
>
> Looks to me like this person was speaking for the so-called "naive"
> people. Good way to get allies. Bash one & call the others naive:)
>
> > > > whose
> > > > money could be better spent improving themselves in concrete
> ways.
> >
> > > It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
> >
> > This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your >
> naivete;
>
> Assuming I am naive, who are YOU to relieve me of it?!?!?!?! Maybe
> I'm
> not naive. Did that possibility ever occur to you?
>
> > it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money
> > > for
> > quack services.
>
> No-one is trying to relieve me of my money for quack services or any
> other kind of services.
If you are going to astrologers and paying them, my dear, not only are
they _trying_ to relieve you of your money for quack services, they are
_succeding_.
> No astrologer has ever forced or tried to force
> anything on me. (which I can't say for most of the so-called
> "skeptics"
> posting here). In fact, I don't always get my questions about
> astrology
> answered, I think maybe because they're busy following these
> arguments.
> But, then I think that's part of the idea of these anti-astrologers
> posting here isn't it?
>
?
> > ...
> > > > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in
> their sig."
> >
> > > But not in their minds?
> >
> > Absolutely;
>
> So you're agreeing with this statement?: "I support the right of
> anyone
> to put whatever they want in their signature but NOT the right to put
> whatever they want in their minds"?
>
you are misreadinbg him. the message was: "absolutley; you serve
yourself best, _however_, if [you don't put astrology in your
mind]...". that is, he believes (of course) in the _right_ everybody
has to put whatever they want in their mind, but still this does not
mean that it is a good idea to put astrology there. I hardly think jim
would call for a law forbidding freedom of thought...
> > you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly > lap
> > up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it
>
> Now you're assuming things about me. You have a very naive view of
> the
> situation. You obviously don't know me. People that know me would
> laugh if they heard someone describe me in this way :). I've given no
>
> impression in any of my posts that could lead someone to that
> conclusion.
>
Well, you pay astrologers; you attack those who warn you that astrology
is bunk; and yet you claim that you are not ripped off; yet you cannot
(since there isn't any) provide any evidence that astrology works better
than mere chance or "sugar pill" effect. this is what I call, indeed,
lapping off what your astrologer tells you...
> > or what only
> > reinforces your preconceived notions.
>
> ...unless of course you believe that just because I think astrology
> works, then I'm naive & "lap up anything I hear the first time". But
> then that would obviously be a preconceived notion, wouldn't it?
>
Not really; but believing in astrology despite the fact thatthere is
never, ever, any objective evidence for it, that nobody ever gave any
credible account of how it can work (I recently got e-mail claiming the
"scientific" explanation for astrology is that the stars magnetic fields
change our DNA and thus our personality... when I pointed out that the
effect the magnetic field my computer monitor - not to mention magnetic
resonance imaging or simple toy magnets - is stronger by orders of
millions and billions, which would imply that people would have a
personality transplant every time they watch TV, I was told that "it is
just a suggestion"... Oh, well) - and also claiming that the reason this
"does not matter" is that "it does not need evidence" or "it works for
me", _is_ being naive. Perhaps the word is wrong: You are not
necessarily naive at all about other things. but you are so in your
belief in astrology.
> > Only with full freedom of
> > exchange
> > of ideas and freedom to make up your own mind is skepticism
> possible.
>
> You just said I don't have the right to put whatever I want in my
> mind.
> This is a contradiction. Which do you mean?
>
> I certainly don't see you as a skeptic, looking at what you've said
> here. Here's what I see:
>
> A *Predator* who believes astrologers are like himself & feels he
> needs
> to compete with them for the *Prey* (people who use astrology, but
> aren't professional astrologers).
A predator for what? What does he want from you? Does he want your
money, like the astrologers do? Does he offer instant "solutions" for
problems people have if they just pay, like astrologers do, instead of
getting help from a psychiatrists or friends and family - people who
_know_ what they are talking about when they advice? he is just
_showing_ you that you are being taken for a ride. and who do you
attack? Him!
> >
> > Jim
>
> Marsha
Marsha - why is it that when someone takes your money and gives you
nothing in return (e.g. Bruce, Earl Curley, Wollman...) they are fine
and dandy, yet when someone does not want _anything_ from you and merely
_points out_ that you are being ripped off, _they_ are the "bad guys"?
Edmond Wollmann
--------------7EB19B2BCB2542F262F2287B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <33BD92...@aznet.net>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
> > I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of
> the
> > wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
> > psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
> > subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief
> system
> > or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd
> diligence.
> > It is operationally obvious once this hurdle is overcome. Since you
> have
> > no skill in this complex craft, analyzing it is impossible for you.
> You
> > would only be exercising fallacious thinking processes and bias.
> (pls
> > refer to Brant Watson and Paul Schlyter via Deja News search- who
> have
> > demonstrated through conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost the
>
> > uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that
> process
> > with you. I hope you understand.
>
> I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
> wonderful and insightful tool electronics can be in understanding the
> world, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
> subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief
> system or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd
> diligence. It is operationally obvious once this hurdle is overcome.
> Since you have no skill in this complex craft, using a telephone or a
> TV set is impossible for you. You would only be exercising fallacious
> thinking processes and bias. (pls refer to Earl Curely and Ed
> Wollmann via Deja News search- who have demonstrated through
> conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost the uninformed can get).
> I really don't have the time to repeat that process with you. I hope
> you understand.
>
> <grin>
>
You just defeated a whole slew of your own (and other cynics) arguments.
Using your argument astrology needs no testing either, because we can
see that it works and don't have to know the why or how.
But I guarantee you if you are to critique something in analysis of how
to build a better one, or disprove the current one doesn't work properly
you must know its workings. Therefore your analogies are weak and
fallacious.
Of course, you are never aware of these things enough, so you contradict
yourself unknowingly over and over. This is because you are more
concerned with "winning" rather than analytical discernment. A truly
non-scientific perspective.
"I don't want to BE right, but to know WHETHER I am right." Albert
Einstein
--
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
--------------7EB19B2BCB2542F262F2287B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Paul Schlyter wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article <33BD92...@aznet.net>,
<BR>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
<P>> I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of
the
<BR>> wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
<BR>> psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
<BR>> subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief system
<BR>> or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd diligence.
<BR>> It is operationally obvious once this hurdle is overcome. Since you
have
<BR>> no skill in this complex craft, analyzing it is impossible for you.
You
<BR>> would only be exercising fallacious thinking processes and bias.
(pls
<BR>> refer to Brant Watson and Paul Schlyter via Deja News search- who
have
<BR>> demonstrated through conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost
the
<BR>> uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that
process
<BR>> with you. I hope you understand.
<P>I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
<BR>wonderful and insightful tool electronics can be in understanding the
<BR>world, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
<BR>subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief
<BR>system or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience anbd
<BR>diligence. It is operationally obvious once this hurdle is overcome.
<BR>Since you have no skill in this complex craft, using a telephone or
a
<BR>TV set is impossible for you. You would only be exercising fallacious
<BR>thinking processes and bias. (pls refer to Earl Curely and Ed
<BR>Wollmann via Deja News search- who have demonstrated through
<BR>conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost the uninformed can get).
<BR>I really don't have the time to repeat that process with you. I hope
<BR>you understand.
<P><grin>
<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE>
You just defeated a whole slew of your own (and other cynics) arguments.
Using your argument astrology needs no testing either, because we can see
that it works and don't <I>have to know the why or how.</I>
<BR>But I guarantee you if you are to <I>critique </I>something in analysis
of how to build a better one, or disprove the current one doesn't work
properly you <I>must </I>know its workings. Therefore your analogies are
weak and fallacious.
<BR>Of course, you are never aware of these things enough, so you contradict
yourself unknowingly over and over. This is because you are more concerned
with "winning" rather than analytical discernment. A truly <I>non-scientific
</I>perspective.
<P>"I don't want to BE right, but to know WHETHER I am right." Albert Einstein
<P>--
<BR>"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18
<BR>--
<BR>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
<BR>© 1997 Altair Publications
<BR><A HREF="http://home.aol.com/ewollmann">http://home.aol.com/ewollmann</A>
<BR> </HTML>
--------------7EB19B2BCB2542F262F2287B--
Marsha
Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
>
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > chatterbox wrote:
> > > > It's no concern of yours where I spend my money.
> > >
> > > This is true, but don't balk at attempts to relieve you of your
> > > naivete;
> >
> > Assuming I am naive, who are YOU to relieve me of it?!?!?!?! Maybe
> > I'm
> > not naive. Did that possibility ever occur to you?
> >
> > > it's far more honest than those trying to relieve you of your money
> > > > for
> > > quack services.
> >
> > No-one is trying to relieve me of my money for quack services or any
> > other kind of services.
>
> If you are going to astrologers and paying them, my dear, not only are
> they _trying_ to relieve you of your money for quack services, they
> are
> _succeding_.
This may be your opinion, but not mine, and since it's my money, it
shouldn't concern you.
> > No astrologer has ever forced or tried to force
> > anything on me. (which I can't say for most of the so-called
> > "skeptics"
> > posting here). In fact, I don't always get my questions about
> > astrology
> > answered, I think maybe because they're busy following these
> > arguments.
> > But, then I think that's part of the idea of these anti-astrologers
> > posting here isn't it?
> >
>
> ?
Duh...
>
> > > ...
> > > > > "I support the right of anyone to put WHATEVER they want in
> > their sig."
> > >
> > > > But not in their minds?
> > >
> > > Absolutely;
> >
> > So you're agreeing with this statement?: "I support the right of
> > anyone
> > to put whatever they want in their signature but NOT the right to put
> > whatever they want in their minds"?
> >
>
> you are misreadinbg him.
Yes, he did explain--I understand.
>
> > > you serve yourself best, however, not to simply eagerly lap
> > > up whatever sounds good the first time you hear it
> >
> > Now you're assuming things about me. You have a very naive view of
> > the
> > situation. You obviously don't know me. People that know me would
> > laugh if they heard someone describe me in this way :). I've given > > no
> >
> > impression in any of my posts that could lead someone to that
> > conclusion.
> >
>
> Well, you pay astrologers; you attack those who warn you that
> astrology
> is bunk;
I *attack*?????? I have never posted anything in sci.skeptic
offensively attacking skeptics! I *have* responded to cynics attacks
that I have read in alt.astrology. I haven't sat back & listened to
astrology being attacked or myself & I will *defend* my own beliefs & my
right to have them. I don't need any warnings from you or anyone else
about astrology being bunk.
> and yet you claim that you are not ripped off; yet you cannot
> (since there isn't any) provide any evidence that astrology works
> better
> than mere chance or "sugar pill" effect. this is what I call, indeed,
> lapping off what your astrologer tells you...
No astrologer has tried to convince me that astrology works. I decided
that myself.
.......
> > ...unless of course you believe that just because I think astrology
> > works, then I'm naive & "lap up anything I hear the first time".
> > But
> > then that would obviously be a preconceived notion, wouldn't it?
> >
>
> Not really; but believing in astrology despite the fact thatthere is
> never, ever, any objective evidence for it, that nobody ever gave any
> credible account of how it can work
....
> (also claiming that the reason
> this "does not matter" is that "it does not need evidence" or "it
> works for me", _is_ being naive. Perhaps the word is wrong: You are
> not necessarily naive at all about other things. but you are so in
> your belief in astrology.
I disagree. In fact I think many of the skeptics & cynics are naive
about what astrology actually is. They seem to have naive expectations
about what they could get out of it assuming it worked--or about what
others get from it. Isn't there anything in your life that you accept
without scientific proof or tests?
> > I certainly don't see you as a skeptic, looking at what you've said
> > here. Here's what I see:
> >
> > A *Predator* who believes astrologers are like himself & feels he
> > needs
> > to compete with them for the *Prey* (people who use astrology, but
> > aren't professional astrologers).
>
> A predator for what?
Getting people to agree with them, trying to discredit a person's belief
when it doesn't affect them one way or another--an ego trip for power &
satisfaction in convincing them that he's right and they are wrong,
could be a lot of reasons.
> What does he want from you?
Agreement with him.
> Does he want your
> money, like the astrologers do?
Some of these cynics seem envious that astrologers make money doing
astrology. They'd probably like to see them not making money with
astrology. Although astrologers do offer free astrological information
here.
> Does he offer instant "solutions" for
> problems people have if they just pay, like astrologers do,
This is not what astrologers do. They give you information & you make
your own decisions.
> instead of
> getting help from a psychiatrists
...who prescribe drugs & psychologists who charge a lot more.
Incidentally, there are psychologists who are also astrologers.
> or friends and family - people who
> _know_ what they are talking about when they advice?
Friends & family? Their advice on what I should do is less knowledgable
than my own, (without astrology) because only I can decide what's best
for me.
> he is just
> _showing_ you that you are being taken for a ride.
Wheeeeeeeeee!
> and who do you
> attack? Him!
Oh man. What do you think I am? A 4-year old? I defend myself and my
ideas when attacked and then you try to put a guilt trip on me for
defending myself against who? These knights in shining armour trying to
save me from the "evil" astrologers?
>
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Marsha
>
> Marsha - why is it that when someone takes your money and gives you
> nothing in return (e.g. Bruce, Earl Curley, Wollman...)
I wouldn't give my money to Bruce or Earl for an astrology reading.
That would be naive since from what I have read, they're not astrologers
and I don't read their posts anymore.
But I would have Ed Wollmann do a chart for me if he has time & pay him
for it. I've seen some of what he has written & I know it would be
worth it.
> they are fine
> and dandy, yet when someone does not want _anything_ from you and
> merely _points out_ that you are being ripped off, _they_ are the "bad > guys"?
They have no evidence that I would be ripped off. They have
preconceived ideas. They're obviously *getting* some satisfaction by
attacking astrology & astrologers. And hope to *get* more people to
agree with them therefore getting the satisfaction that astrologers have
less money from doing astrology.
Avital, Re: another post of yours--
green=healing
invisible=spirits
gargoyles=astrologers
attic=your mind
:)))
> Avital Pilpel.
Marsha
Wayne Dyer
Avital Pilpel wrote:
> Wayne Dyer wrote:
> > Marsha wrote:
> > > Is your name really Wayne Dyer????
> >
> > Yes, but I'm not the guy you probably think I am. Since I was born,
> > I've gone by my middle name of "Wayne". My first initial is D. for
> > David, but I refuse to be called "D. Wayne" because that sounds like
> > an exaggerated pronounciation of Dwayne.
> >
> > I get a lot of misdirected email, but that's life.
> I must be missing something... Who is the _other_ Wayne Dyer?
I assumed Marsha was confusing my name with that of Wayne W. Dyer, Ph.D.,
author of several self-help books, pal of Deepak Chopra, etc. I have
no beef with him, and I don't intend to mislead people -- I've never
impersonated him and all email I get directed to him or asking if I am him,
I reply to politely and factually. I can think of only one or two
email interchanges where someone responded to one of my posts and had assumed
I was Dr. WWD, but never asked. Things got confusing, so I make a point of
ID'ing myself whenever I suspect such an assumption has been made.
--
Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
DILUTE!! DILUTE!! DILUTE!!
DrPostman
dwd...@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer) wrote:
>I assumed Marsha was confusing my name with that of Wayne W. Dyer, Ph.D.,
>author of several self-help books, pal of Deepak Chopra, etc. I have
>no beef with him, and I don't intend to mislead people -- I've never
>impersonated him and all email I get directed to him or asking if I am him,
>I reply to politely and factually.
There is also a Wayne Dyer who is a journalist and who narrated
a very good special on PBS on the nature of war. I think he's
Canadian. I actually wondered at first if you and he were the same.
--
"Yaaakpht-tszzkzjzxcz!",
What Stephen Hawking has to say about Hoagland
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
Knight of the Potato Cannon,
Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
And a lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Want to email me? My address is: jamiemps(at)mindspring.com
"You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
Bruce Daniel Kettler
--
widde...@widdershins.seanet.com
!!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
>dwd...@eskimo.com (Wayne Dyer) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Caesar salad with fresh-ground pepper (no anchovies, please),
>
> Oh yeah? Well what *I* want to know is how the hell you get a Caesar
>salad without anchovies? That...and the raw egg are what MAKE it
>Caesar salad.
>
>
>Tarla
>
Raw egg is an excellent medium for salmonella. Restaurants in this
part of the galaxy are being discouraged from using them. };.)
John Hutchins
Colin Dooley
Marsha wrote:
>
> They have no evidence that I would be ripped off. They have
> preconceived ideas. They're obviously *getting* some satisfaction by
> attacking astrology & astrologers. And hope to *get* more people to
> agree with them therefore getting the satisfaction that astrologers have
> less money from doing astrology.
>
We do not "attack" astrologers. All we do is ask for a simple
demonstration of things which they claim to be doing every day
of their lives. After a few years of "why should I?" then naturally
we don't mince words any more. In fact we have a healthy suspicion
that they are hiding something.
I too would pay money to get Eddy Wollman to do my chart. I have
a feeling he wouldn't accept it though...
--
<\___/> | Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there.
/ O O \ | He wasn't there again today - I think he's from the CIA.
\_____/ FTB. |
Marsha
Colin Dooley wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
>
> We do not "attack" astrologers.
Some of you do. Avital was defending "poor" Jim Rogers against what he
called my "attacks" which were in defense of "attacks" on me. As I've
said, I don't post in sci.skeptic & claim they're wrong. I just reply
to those that I have read in alt.astrology.
> All we do is ask for a simple
> demonstration of things which they claim to be doing every day
> of their lives. After a few years of "why should I?" then naturally
> we don't mince words any more.
Why bother?
> In fact we have a healthy suspicion
> that they are hiding something.
What could be hidden? You have the same books & information available
to you as I do. I've done a lot of reading over years & still don't
have the skill to be a professional astrologer.
I'm sure you've heard this before, but if you were interested enough you
would do the reading yourself or have a competent astrologer do a chart
and reading for you, but most skeptics don't want to take a chance on
spending the money for a chart or the time to study it for themselves.
Yet they don't hesitate to ask that astrologers spend hours doing a free
chart & interpretation for them (I assume so they can deny any accuracy)
or to spend weeks or months doing scientific tests to prove something to
skeptics that they most likely plan to "rip apart".
> I too would pay money to get Eddy Wollman to do my chart. I have
> a feeling he wouldn't accept it though...
I wouldn't know. But I would wonder what your motives were.
Edmond Wollmann
Marsha wrote:
> Colin Dooley wrote:
> > Marsha wrote:
> > We do not "attack" astrologers.
> Some of you do.
ALL of them do-which one of them would attack a clinical or counseling
psychologist this way and "demand" that they "prove" what they do on
newsnet????????
ANSWER-NONE!!! Nor would one of those professionals answer these
agitators with anymore than I typically do. Most won't answer at all.
I repeat Mr. Cynics, tell me for my attorney WHAT it is you believe I
claim to be able to do?
--
"LIBEL
"Libel is injury to reputation.
"Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public
hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a
person are libelous.
[...]
"Actions for civil libel result mainly from news stories that
allege crime, fraud, dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct,
or stories that defame the subject professionally, causing
financial loss either personally or to a business.
"There is only one complete and unconditional defense to a **
civil action for libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE. **
(Note well that word, PROVABLY.) Quoting someone correctly is not **
enough. The important thing is to be able to satisfy a jury that **
the libelous statement is substantially correct. **
[...]
"Criminal Libel
"The publication of a libel may result in what is considered a
breach of the peace. For that reason, it may constitute a criminal
offense.
[...]
- Excerpts from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STYLEBOOK AND LIBEL MANUAL
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
Avital Pilpel
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> ALL of them do-which one of them would attack a clinical or counseling
>
> psychologist this way and "demand" that they "prove" what they do on
> newsnet????????
> ANSWER-NONE!!! Nor would one of those professionals answer these
> agitators with anymore than I typically do. Most won't answer at all.
>
namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is based
on superstition. For this reason, of course we won't ask a psychologist
the same thing - but you are not a psychologist, you are an astrologer,
pretending to have knowledge when in factall you have is superstition.
> I repeat Mr. Cynics, tell me for my attorney WHAT it is you believe I
> claim to be able to do?
You ar a fraud. you charge money for services by claiming to be an
expert in a fieldthat does not exist and that there is no evidence
whatsoever to show that it works better than plain chance or guessing.
> --
> "LIBEL
[snipped]
> - Excerpts from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STYLEBOOK AND LIBEL MANUAL
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
OHHHHHH!!!!!
LEGAL THREATS!!!!!!!
Namely: "ploease stop exposing me as a fruad, or else I will sue you!
Stop demanding evidence, or I will cry! Mommy!!!"
Sue me, Wollman. I say that your "threats" of suing for libel are as
empty as your claims of astrological "knowledge". I am calling your
bluff.
Jerk.
Edmond Wollmann
Avital Pilpel wrote:
Thank you! Next?
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ALL of them do-which one of them would attack a clinical or counseling
> > psychologist this way and "demand" that they "prove" what they do on
> > newsnet????????
> > ANSWER-NONE!!! Nor would one of those professionals answer these
> > agitators with anymore than I typically do. Most won't answer at all.
> >
>
> namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
> while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is based
> on superstition.
Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose a
fraud. What kind of name is Avital? Current academia, something it
would behoove you to investigate, get up to date sir.
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
--
"When you were young and your heart was an open book-you used to say
live and let live. But if this ever changin world in which we live in
makes you give in and cry-say live and let die!" Paul McCartney "Live
and Let Die"
--
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
What kind of name is Avital?
It's an anagram of Lativa!
Marsha
Jason Mathews
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
>Avital Pilpel wrote:
>> namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
>> while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is
based
>> on superstition.
>
>Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose a
>fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
<SNIP!>
Ad hominem.
I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
wonderful and insightful tool skepticism can be in understanding the
real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
investigation. It is not a belief system or religion and can be learned
by anyone with patience and diligence. It is operationally obvious once
this hurdle is overcome. Since you have no skill in this complex craft,
analyzing it is impossible for you. You would only be exercising
fallacious thinking processes and bias. (pls refer to Bruce Daniel
Kettler and Earl Curley and John McGowan via Deja News search- who have
demonstrated through posting on UseNet repeatedly just HOW lost the
uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that process
with you. I hope you understand.
If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
yourself of some up to date and in depth physics, astronomy, and other
generalized science texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical
investigation and objective analysis the validity of skepticism and its
co-functioning with the real world and many other helpful paradigms.
If you would like recommendations to start your interesting and exciting
study, I would be glad to reference some texts for you.
Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is not an insult simply an
observation of your behavior. This is simply my best effort to explain
-not to incite. Please have respect for the diverse opinions people
hold, understanding the subject will allow you to dispel this
predjudice.
If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
understanding of either skepticism. astronomy or how critical thought
can dispel useless mental baggage I would be more than happy to answer
what I can, or assist you in your understanding in that quest.
Thank you for your maturity in this matter.
--
desk...@hotmail.com "I have the integrity to argue principle,
Sarcasm. Irony. Humor. and ignore facts." - Bruce Daniel Kettler
http://www.geocities.com/~godfist
Hate spam? Me too. /~godfist/parody/
Marsha
Jason Mathews wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
> >Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> >> namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
> >> while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is
> based
> >> on superstition.
> >
> >Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose a
> >fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
>
> <SNIP!>
>
> Ad hominem.
>
> I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
> wonderful and insightful tool skepticism can be in understanding the
> real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
> investigation.
Try it this way: I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really
cognizant of the
wonderful and insightful tool *uncertainty* can be in understanding the
real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
investigation.
:)
Marsha
> desk...@hotmail.com
> Sarcasm. Irony. Humor.
??
Edmond Wollmann
Jason Mathews wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
> >Avital Pilpel wrote:
You see Ann! And this is one of your "objective participants?
> >> namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
> >> while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is
> based
> >> on superstition.
> >Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose a
> >fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
> <SNIP!>
> Ad hominem.
That was an actual reference. I am afraid this will be my last response
to you as you are obviously lacking the caliber for constructive
interaction. You need a class on logical fallacies-that was not one,
that was proof you say you need to make informed deciscions. The
academic community is not as paranoid of new ideas as cynics are. Nor
are real skeptics-of which I AM one.
Thanks,
SNIP!
I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
wonderful and insightful tool astrology can be in understanding the
psyche, when learned properly and studied in depth like any other
subject worthy of intelligent investigation. It is not a belief system
or religion and can be learned by anyone with patience and diligence. It
is operationally obvious once this hurdle is overcome. Since you have no
skill in this complex craft, analyzing it is impossible for you. You
would only be exercising fallacious thinking processes and bias. (pls
refer to Brant Watson and Paul Schlyter via Deja News search- who have
demonstrated through conversing with me repeatedly just HOW lost the
uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that process
with you. I hope you understand.
If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
yourself of some up to date and in depth psychological/astrological
texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical investigation and
objective analysis the validity of astrology and its co-functioning with
psychology and many other helpful paradigms. If you would like
recommendations to start your interesting and exciting study, I would be
glad to reference some texts for you.
Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is not an insult simply an
observation of your behavior. This is simply my best effort to explain
-not to incite. Please have respect for the diverse opinions people
hold, understanding the subject will allow you to dispel this
predjudice.
If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
understanding of either psychology, astrology or metaphysics I would be
more than happy to answer what I can, or assist you in your
understanding in that quest.
Thank you for your maturity in this matter,
Sincerely,
Edmond Wollmann
--
"To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage" Confucious
Jason Mathews
Marsha wrote in article <33C686...@mindspring.com>...
>Try it this way: I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really
>cognizant of the
>wonderful and insightful tool *uncertainty* can be in understanding the
>real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
>investigation.
Mmm...I would think being uncertain about some things is a part of being
skeptical.
>
>> desk...@hotmail.com
>> Sarcasm. Irony. Humor.
>
>??
It'
s my sig. Hit my as yet unfinished website and you'll see why. Or
maybe not...I don't think you'll like it much.
--
desk...@hotmail.com "I have the integrity to argue principle,
Sarcasm. Irony. Humor. and ignore facts." - Bruce Daniel Kettler
Marsha
Jason Mathews wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote in article <33C686...@mindspring.com>...
>
> >Try it this way: I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really
> >cognizant of the
> >wonderful and insightful tool *uncertainty* can be in understanding the
> >real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
> >investigation.
>
> skeptical.
That's what I meant :)
>
> >
> >> desk...@hotmail.com
> >> Sarcasm. Irony. Humor.
> >
> >??
>
> It'
> s my sig. Hit my as yet unfinished website and you'll see why. Or
> maybe not...I don't think you'll like it much.
I want to see your picture gallery. I had a good laugh at your awards
page :)))--I know your not finished.
Edmond Wollmann
Jason Mathews wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C679...@aznet.net>...
> a
> >> >fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
> >> <SNIP!>
> >> Ad hominem.
> >That was an actual reference. I am afraid this will be my last response
> >to you as you are obviously lacking the caliber for constructive
> >interaction. You need a class on logical fallacies-that was not one,
> >that was proof you say you need to make informed deciscions. The
> >academic community is not as paranoid of new ideas as cynics are. Nor
> >are real skeptics-of which I AM one.
> Hah! Sorry! "What kind of name is Avital" is supposed to be a logical
> argument?
Obviously not this was;
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
> Spank me if I'm wrong, but what else is it? If you can demonstrate
> otherwise, you have my apologies.
I accept.
--
"A wise and good man can suffer no disgrace" Fabius Maximus
Jason Mathews
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C679...@aznet.net>...
>Jason Mathews wrote:
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
>> >Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose
a
>> >fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
>
>> <SNIP!>
>
>> Ad hominem.
>
>That was an actual reference. I am afraid this will be my last response
>to you as you are obviously lacking the caliber for constructive
>interaction. You need a class on logical fallacies-that was not one,
>that was proof you say you need to make informed deciscions. The
>academic community is not as paranoid of new ideas as cynics are. Nor
>are real skeptics-of which I AM one.
Hah! Sorry! "What kind of name is Avital" is supposed to be a logical
argument?
Who needs the class here?
Spank me if I'm wrong, but what else is it? If you can demonstrate
otherwise, you have my apologies.
--
I H Spedding
>Jason Mathews wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
>> >Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
>You see Ann! And this is one of your "objective participants?
>
>> >> namely, becasue these "agitators' do not attack theories that are worth
>> >> while. Psychology is based on science and research. Astrology is
>> based
>> >> on superstition.
>
>> >Incorrect as usual. Come out from behind your mask and we'll see whose a
>> >fraud. What kind of name is Avital?
>
>> <SNIP!>
>
>> Ad hominem.
>
>That was an actual reference. I am afraid this will be my last response
>to you as you are obviously lacking the caliber for constructive
>interaction. You need a class on logical fallacies-that was not one,
>that was proof you say you need to make informed deciscions. The
>academic community is not as paranoid of new ideas as cynics are. Nor
>are real skeptics-of which I AM one.
>Thanks,
>SNIP!
>I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
>© 1997 Altair Publications
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Ooops! I think I've been Wollmannized! I feel a quote coming on...
[I}gnorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know
much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will
never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin, Introduction
The Descent of Man (1871)
Ian
The Domain
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Jason Mathews wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C668...@aznet.net>...
> > >Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> You see Ann! And this is one of your "objective participants?
Wah. Actually, he's not an "objective participant", he's clearly
skeptical, on the hypothesis issue. Please read the threads before you
answer so quickly, Ed. There are already two objective holders of Ann's
premise -- Duane Maxwell and myself. All others participating are not
obligated to be objective, in fact she specifically requested the more
argumentative types, which could be astrologists or skeptics, or
whomever just has that temperment, in these newsgroups or not.
You are just so ready to point the finger and whine, aren't you?
- Heather
--
The Domain/GodFist, IIInc.
Sarcasm, News, Chat, more...
http://www.geocities.com/~godfist/The_Domain
Hate spam? So do we.
http://www.geocities.com/~godfist/parody
Join the fight against spam: http://www.cauce.org
I H Spedding
>Marsha wrote:
>
>> Colin Dooley wrote:
>
>> > Marsha wrote:
>
>> > We do not "attack" astrologers.
>
>> Some of you do.
>
>ALL of them do-which one of them would attack a clinical or counseling
>psychologist this way and "demand" that they "prove" what they do on
>newsnet????????
>ANSWER-NONE!!! Nor would one of those professionals answer these
>agitators with anymore than I typically do. Most won't answer at all.
>
>I repeat Mr. Cynics, tell me for my attorney WHAT it is you believe I
>claim to be able to do?
Actually, it would be quite nice if you were to tell us what it is you
think you can do. We don't think astrology can do anything.
Ian
Edmond Wollmann
> >> Colin Dooley wrote:
> >> > Marsha wrote:
> >> Some of you do.
Pls remove alt.astrology from future posts. I have numerous articles in
publication worldwide and my book is now finished. You can purchase it
like other seriously seeking individuals. I will be available for those
with true intention and interest always.
For you, search Deja News-I have explained much more than you can
digest-unless of course you alter your perspective from cynic to
skeptic.
I have even explained the difference in intention for THAT.
--
"There's still time to change the road your on." Led Zepplin "Stairway
To Heaven"
Jason Mathews
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C6BA...@aznet.net>...
>Pls remove alt.astrology from future posts. I have numerous articles in
>publication worldwide and my book is now finished. You can purchase it
>like other seriously seeking individuals. I will be available for those
>with true intention and interest always.
I wish you well in your publication. And since you have been so
friendly, I will wander on down to my local bookstore/coffeeshop
and read your book in my spare time. I will then personally critique
your entire work here on sci.skeptic in the form of a critical review,
although I am sure you will call it a cynical one.
I can't wait. Whats the date of publication? And the ISBN when
it is released?
>For you, search Deja News-I have explained much more than you can
>digest-unless of course you alter your perspective from cynic to
>skeptic.
>I have even explained the difference in intention for THAT.
No, you've given us a lot that is indigestible. Run away Ed.
At least Ann has the forthrightness to put some of what she
knows on the line. You, on the other hand, respond with form letters,
whining, and redefining the English language to suit your own fancy.
You aren't skeptical of anything. You'll swallow it whole if it has
multiuniverse on the label. You can't even handle your own tactics
used against yourself.
Wah.
--
desk...@hotmail.com | "I have the integrity to argue principle,
Sarcasm. Irony. Humor. | and ignore facts." - Bruce Daniel Kettler
http://www.geocities.com/~godfist
Hate spam? Me too. /~godfist/parody/
Yes, I am being harsh.
Marsha
The above was posted by Heather, a "neutral"? participant in Ann's test.
And this is the signature of Jason Mathews:
desk...@hotmail.com "I have the integrity to argue principle,
Sarcasm. Irony. Humor. and ignore facts." - Bruce Daniel Kettler
http://www.geocities.com/~godfist
Hate spam? Me too. /~godfist/parody/
What's the connection?
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
Jason Mathews wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C6BA...@aznet.net>...
> >Pls remove alt.astrology from future posts. I have numerous articles in
> >publication worldwide and my book is now finished. You can purchase it
> >like other seriously seeking individuals. I will be available for those
> >with true intention and interest always.
> I wish you well in your publication. And since you have been so
> friendly, I will wander on down to my local bookstore/coffeeshop
> and read your book in my spare time. I will then personally critique
> your entire work here on sci.skeptic in the form of a critical review,
> although I am sure you will call it a cynical one.
If it is so nonsensical why worry about it or me at all?
> >For you, search Deja News-I have explained much more than you can
> >digest-unless of course you alter your perspective from cynic to
> >skeptic.
> >I have even explained the difference in intention for THAT.
> No, you've given us a lot that is indigestible. Run away Ed.
Then it would be rather silly to stay here if you don't think you can
learn anything-why would you want to be here? I am where I belong, I'll
be running nowhere.
> At least Ann has the forthrightness to put some of what she
> knows on the line. You, on the other hand, respond with form letters,
> whining, and redefining the English language to suit your own fancy.
Whatever your version tells you go with it.
> You aren't skeptical of anything. You'll swallow it whole if it has
> multiuniverse on the label. You can't even handle your own tactics
> used against yourself.
:-))) Alright. Well thats a great argument there. Another "hotmail"
chicken eh?
--
"Whom they fear they hate" Quintus Ennius "Thyestes"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
> > Colin Dooley wrote:
> > > We do not "attack" astrologers.
> > Some of you do.
> ALL of them do-
Wrongo, Ed. You just can't stand to see your pet field subjected to
critical review, so whine that you and other astrologers, personally,
are being "attacked."
> which one of them would attack a clinical or counseling
> psychologist this way and "demand" that they "prove" what they do on
> newsnet????????
Depends on what they're doing; if they're pulling Freudian
psychoanalytical horse hockey, you can bet your hairpiece I'd ask them
what the foundations of their practical theory are besides Freud's
random musings.
...
> I repeat Mr. Cynics, tell me for my attorney WHAT it is you believe I
> claim to be able to do?
Rectify a chart, for one thing, which implies that accurate natal data
are required for an accurate view into the psyche.
> "LIBEL
> "Libel is injury to reputation.
If the shoe fits, Ed. You can't muster up any logical counterargument to
skeptical questions, and so you resort to pathetic legal threats and
whining about being "attacked" because being put on the spot makes you
look bad. Sorry, dude, being asked to defend one's position has never
been libel, and never will be; as long as the First Amendment is intact,
you can't make it a thought crime to question your wisdom. You have a
perfect right to blither like an idiot, and I have a perfect right to
criticize your blitherings.
Jim
Jim Rogers
Marsha wrote:
> Colin Dooley wrote:
> > We do not "attack" astrologers.
> called my "attacks" which were in defense of "attacks" on me. As I've
> said, I don't post in sci.skeptic & claim they're wrong. I just reply
I'm glad you had the courtesy to put "attack" in quotes; I wasn't
attacking you, Marsha, nor did I take your replies to be an attack.
> > All we do is ask for a simple
> > demonstration of things which they claim to be doing every day
> > of their lives. After a few years of "why should I?" then naturally
> > we don't mince words any more.
> Why bother?
Consider it a public service to potential consumers.
> > In fact we have a healthy suspicion
> > that they are hiding something.
> What could be hidden? You have the same books & information available
> to you as I do. I've done a lot of reading over years & still don't
> have the skill to be a professional astrologer.
The same sorts of things that churches "hide" throughout the ages: that
their creeds have no foundations beyond authoritarian claims. They may
not be fully aware of that, but tend to be afraid to face it.
> I'm sure you've heard this before, but if you were interested enough you
> would do the reading yourself or have a competent astrologer do a chart
> and reading for you, but most skeptics don't want to take a chance on
> spending the money for a chart or the time to study it for themselves.
I hope you're satisfied as to the reasons for my own reluctance. I'm
waiting for the right circumstances before contaminating myself and
members of the astrological community with a bias.
> Yet they don't hesitate to ask that astrologers spend hours doing a free
> chart & interpretation for them (I assume so they can deny any accuracy)
> or to spend weeks or months doing scientific tests to prove something to
> skeptics that they most likely plan to "rip apart".
If it fails, it'll be ripped apart; if it succeeds, it'll be scrutinized
closely and cause confusion. This is why proper controls and methodology
are crucial. If we were talking about a funded research project, some
payment for services could likely be arranged, but nothing's ever gotten
even close to agreeing on the legitimacy of objective testing yet, so
this issue is moot. A confident astrologer, however, could view a
volunteer effort as a trial run for a shot at the Randi Challenge (big
bux), if a convincing show results.
> > I too would pay money to get Eddy Wollman to do my chart. I have
> > a feeling he wouldn't accept it though...
> I wouldn't know. But I would wonder what your motives were.
On the one hand you exhort skeptics to get their charts done, and on the
other you're suspicious of their motives when they suggest that they
might. Who's the unfair one, here?
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
I've killfiled you.
--
"I don't mean to be cruel-but I'm finished with you!" "Talk To Ya Later"
g&g
(Lots of stuff snipped about astrology and how it can be understood by
anyone who spends the time to learn it)
If what you say about astrology being so logical and so easily understood
is correct, then please answer these questions for those of us like me who
don't understand it at all.
What influence to cosmic bodies have on us and why? Is it gravitational?
Spiritual? Just exactly what does your education on the subject say about
this influence and how it works in our physical or psychic make-up?
Why is the birth date and not conception date important?
Because the earth is so incredibly small when compared to the vast
distances from the cosmic bodies which supposedly influence us, why is
birth location a factor?
Has astrology changed over the years to accept the new findings about
distances of planets and stars, age of the universe, black holes, etc.? If
so, wasn't the old practice completely wrong? If not, isn't the current
practice completely wrong?
I am asking these questions in all sincerity, trying to figure out for
myself why I should think there is something to it when, on the surface, it
looks completely unbelievable.
Marsha
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
> > Colin Dooley wrote:
> > > In fact we have a healthy suspicion
> > > that they are hiding something.
>
> > What could be hidden?
> The same sorts of things that churches "hide" throughout the ages:
> that their creeds have no foundations beyond authoritarian claims.
> They may not be fully aware of that, but tend to be afraid to face it.
> If it fails, it'll be ripped apart; if it succeeds, it'll be
> scrutinized closely and cause confusion. This is why proper controls
> and methodology are crucial. If we were talking about a funded
> research project, some payment for services could likely be arranged,
> but nothing's ever gotten even close to agreeing on the legitimacy of
> objective testing yet, so this issue is moot. A confident astrologer,
> however, could view a volunteer effort as a trial run for a shot at
> the Randi Challenge (big bux), if a convincing show results.
Myself, I wouldn't trust Randi no matter how good I was at anything.
> > > I too would pay money to get Eddy Wollman to do my chart. I have
> > > a feeling he wouldn't accept it though...
>
> > I wouldn't know. But I would wonder what your motives were.
>
> On the one hand you exhort skeptics to get their charts done, and on
> the other you're suspicious of their motives when they suggest that
> they might. Who's the unfair one, here?
I don't think I'm being unfair. I'm being open & honest. You believe
it's OK for a skeptic to wonder if astrology is hiding something.
I think it's OK for me to wonder about the motives of a skeptic that
decides to get a chart done by Ed Wollmann (even though I think he'd be
an excellent choice) because of what so many skeptics have been saying
about him to him.
Sorry, but I'm a "born skeptic" :)--my whole life I've been suspicious
of peoples motives. People have told me most of my life that I'm too
suspicious or that I don't trust anyone. I'm trying to prove them wrong
but sometimes I lapse back especially when I'm talking to another
skeptic :)
So, if I'm unfair the so are you :) :) :)
>
> Jim
Marsha
Colin Dooley
g&g wrote:
>
> What influence to cosmic bodies have on us and why? Is it gravitational?
> Spiritual? Just exactly what does your education on the subject say about
> this influence and how it works in our physical or psychic make-up?
>
Was astrology modified when we found out that Pluto is actually
two separate planets (for example).
>
> Why is the birth date and not conception date important?
>
Do people who are born in the same hospital within minutes of
each other have the same personalities? (Be *very* careful here ;-) )
> Because the earth is so incredibly small when compared to the vast
> distances from the cosmic bodies which supposedly influence us, why is
> birth location a factor?
>
It is not a big factor. The astrology programs only seem to use
it to compensate for time zone.
Lou Minatti
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
<snip>
> "When you were young and your heart was an open book-you used to say
> live and let live. But if this ever changin world in which we live in
> makes you give in and cry-say live and let die!" Paul McCartney "Live
> and Let Die"
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then your suffer.
Superstition ain't the way." Stevie Wonder
--
Try the only valid Psychic Challenge on the Web and win big cash prizes:
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/CHALLEN.HTM
(By sending me unsolicited commercial email, you agree to the Terms and
Conditions as listed here: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/SPAM.HTM)
Edmond Wollmann
Lou Minatti wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> <snip>
> > "When you were young and your heart was an open book-you used to say
> > live and let live. But if this ever changin world in which we live in
> > makes you give in and cry-say live and let die!" Paul McCartney "Live
> > and Let Die"
>
> "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then your suffer.
> Superstition ain't the way." Stevie Wonder
I don't believe in things I either know them or I don't-you simply know
nothing of astrology-YOU have a superstition about astrology-I have
knowledge of it-please keep your uninformed opinions out of
alt.astrology
Thanks
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend. Just what you want to
be, you'll be in the end." The Moody Blues "Nights in White Satin"
Jason Mathews
Marsha wrote in article <33C6F0...@mindspring.com>...
>The above was posted by Heather, a "neutral"? participant in Ann's test.
>
>What's the connection?
We happen to know each other in real life, and are working on the same web
site. She's considerably better at it than I am. :) And it's my fault she's
in sci.skeptic.
Please...don't insinuate something that isn't there.
--
Jason Mathews
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33C795...@aznet.net>...
>I don't believe in things I either know them or I don't-you simply know
>nothing of astrology-YOU have a superstition about astrology-I have
>knowledge of it-please keep your uninformed opinions out of
>alt.astrology
<SNIP>
You still misunderstand what skepticism is.
I am afraid you are simply uninformed and not really cognizant of the
wonderful and insightful tool skepticism can be in understanding the
real world, when used properly like any other tool useful in intelligent
investigation. It is not a belief system or religion and can be learned
by anyone with patience and diligence. It is operationally obvious once
this hurdle is overcome. Since you have no skill in this complex craft,
analyzing it is impossible for you. You would only be exercising
fallacious thinking processes and bias. (pls refer to Bruce Daniel
Kettler and Earl Curley and John McGowan via Deja News search- who have
demonstrated through posting on UseNet repeatedly just HOW lost the
uninformed can get). I really don't have the time to repeat that process
with you. I hope you understand.
If it is possible to visit a local library or bookstore please avail
yourself of some up to date and in depth physics, astronomy, and other
generalized science texts. These will allow you to see by true skeptical
investigation and objective analysis the validity of skepticism and its
co-functioning with the real world and many other helpful paradigms.
If you would like recommendations to start your interesting and exciting
study, I would be glad to reference some texts for you.
Until then please try to refrain from childish remarks that only allow
yourself to be identified as unintelligent and less than objectively
questioning in the search for truth, and perhaps too quick to make
judgments from predjudice or ignorance. This is not an insult simply an
observation of your behavior. This is simply my best effort to explain
-not to incite. Please have respect for the diverse opinions people
hold, understanding the subject will allow you to dispel this
predjudice.
If you have any serious and thoughtful questions based on a real
understanding of either skepticism. astronomy or how critical thought
can dispel useless mental baggage I would be more than happy to answer
what I can, or assist you in your understanding in that quest.
Thank you for your maturity in this matter.
"You don't understand anything until you can explain it to
your grandmother." - Albert Einstein
Edmond Wollmann
Jason Mathews wrote:
SNIP!
CYNIC=From the Greek kynikos, -doglike, churlish. Philos. one of a sect
of ancient Greek philosophers who taught that pleasure is an evil if
sought for its own sake, and made an ostentatious show of contempt for
riches and enjoyment.; sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the
goodness of human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief
by sneers and sarcasm-cynicism=the practice of a cynic; a morose
contempt of the pleasures and arts in life. Lexicon/Webster
Ig no rant=Deficient of knowledge of either general information or a
specific field; uninformed; untaught; unenlightened-ignorance, the state
of being ignorant, or of lacking knowledge; the condition of not being
cognizant or aware of. Lexicon/Webster..between ignoramous and ignore.
Bigot=a person intolerant of creeds, opinions etc. other than his own.
(Webster College Dict.)
Case # 3,539,045
Conclusion-cynical and unable to acknowledge larger frameworks within
which fragmented knowledge fits.
Psych-Inferiority, persistant feeling that one does not measure up to
societal standards and personal fictional standards. Ego lock on
physicality and the belief that only psychic material acessable to
egoistic functions is "real."
Habitual responses. Inability for wholistic cognitions.
Philo-The desire to participate in emotivism and the inability to remove
such judgments. Begging the question vicious and cyclic argumentation
which denies purposeful existence other than to prove pointlessness.
Fear that existence is pointless and construct development to reinforce
this conclusion. Pleasure derived from invalidating arguments that
inspire and improve the human condition.
Inability to understand coherence theory of truth. Inability to
understand the pragmatic theory of truth.
Sci-Participates in repeated inductive generalizations. Materialism
focused and rigid. Believes that because information not cognizable by
the ego self, it must not exist, delusional and inability for rigorous
investigation prior to conclusions. Projects thaat "others" are guilty
of this.
Conclusion-Perspective alteration necessary. Insists on misery and
negativity in order to resist the slightest appearance of a
relinquishment of control-which inadvertantly reinforces inferiority
feelings. Denial. No known remediation at this point. Likelyhood of
future crisis in perspective great.
I have killfiled you, as you are wasting bandwidth, off topic and simply
an agitator with nothing relevent to say.
--
"I don't mean to be cruel, but I'm finished with you!" "Talk To You
Later"