Subject: What Bruce Daniel Kettler has against Twitch Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:29:23 -070

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

======== Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.astrology,alt.alien.visitors Subject: What Bruce Daniel Kettler has against Twitch From: Dan Pressnell Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:29:23 -0700 I can't remember all the newsgroups that Bruce has posted to, so I'm taking a stab at just a few of them. The champion of don't-crosspost just copies the message to a bunch of groups, rather than putting all the groups into the header. He's now made reference to how he and others are going to plaster his smear campaign "all over usenet". Perhaps some people are wondering just what it is that Bruce has against Twitch. You can find out by using DejaNews (or Yahoo--they are the same thing in searching usenet) and viewing this reference:$8ka@alterdial.UU.NET%3e&server=dnserver.dbapr&CONTEXT=834747246.28343&hitnum=77 I give that reference for the benefit of Bruce and the anonymous co-authors of his soon-to-be world famous, Nobel Prize winning book on skeptics. You see, Bruce would otherwise accuse me of distortion; because I'm going to copy the evil Twitch's article below, written on April 27, 996, that caused Bruce to embark on his hate campaign toward Twitch. Notice, dear reader, how terrible Twitch's posting was. Bruce, why don't you put the article by Twitch into your book that is going to be propogated throughout usenet? I'm sure Twitch will give you permission to use the article. Do I expect Bruce to do this? Of course not. Bruce wouldn't do something like that, because that would be honest, and would give his readers the truth. Bruce doesn't want the readers of his book to know the truth. He only wants them to THINK they know the truth. Dan Twitch's article follows: Article 78 of 78 Subject: Re: IS "PARANORMAL" NEWSGROUP BECOMING "ANTI-PARANORMAL"? From: Date: 1996/04/27 Message-Id: <4ls04g$8ka@alterdial.UU.NET> References: <4ln7dn$> Newsgroups: alt.paranormal (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote: #Are the "skeptics" chasing away those who want to constructively #contribute to this group? Are you indicating that to constructively contribute you must agree or else? #People interested in the subject are gradually losing interest here, #since so many messages are ANTI-PARANORMAL. So many, also, are #"flames." #There are "flames" coming from both those for and those against the idea #that paranormal activities are real. Congratulations! This is one of the first times a believer has admitted that the fault is not just with the skeptics. Thank you. Indeed, this message can be #construed as a "flame." Not so far. Any reasonable complaint against constant flaming is not a flame. #I believe that those who find that they are interested in discussion of #the paranormal, but are not interested in either reading the # SNIDE REMARKS # DEMANDS FOR PROOF OF "CLAIMS" Not being interested in snide remarks is legit. But requests for evidence of paranormal ability or other unusual claims is perfectly legit. The Earls, Uris, Nancys, Hoaglands, Lazars, etc. are so common that any claim to be taken seriously should be greeted with a request for some evidence that this is not another hoax, person who has lost all touch with reality, etc. Why do you object to a request for evidence? If someone came to you and told you that he would make you wealthy by paranormal means and it would only cost you $5,000 up front, wouldn't you ask for some evidence? # FLAMES # SO-CALLED "PROOFS" that # no-one is "psychic" # there are no UFO'S # etc. # and the religion of "orthodox" # science views #should post a message under this heading, this title, "...becoming #anti-paranormal," stating that opinion. #Also, I want to recommend to proponents of paranormal phenomena, that #they do not debate the so-called "skeptics." I believe they will go #away if there's no-one to "fight." Just the opposite. The legitimate skeptic isn't looking for a fight, but to avoid talking with those who don't believe you are correct, is the way of the paranoid. They are out to get us! Or those nasty unbelievers, how dare they doubt that I can fly just using the power of my mind! #If one really want's to *PROVE* that ESP is real, that UFO'S exist, they #never will to people with closed minds and little or no knowledge of the #subject, Many of us have as great or greater knowledge of the subject. And some of us have far greater knowledge of physics, biology, etc. I'm afraid that I would say that the closed minds are on the other side. but if their attempt is so irrestible, why not post at #SCI.SKEPTIC and similar newsgroups? Debate among people who all think alike is intellectually sterile. Many skeptics think that believers should post the evidence or at least provide this evidence for the very simple reason that belief without a scientific basis is a religion. If you wish to state that what you are practicing and advocating is a religion, most of us won't object or even disagree. Religions are, by their very nature, beyond skepticism. God, if she exists, goes beyond the natural. But the instance that you claim the ability to influence the natural, you are in the realm where it is unscientific to not proceed in a scientific fashion. And many sceptics feel that to allow you to state something which they feel is false, without sufficent evidence, is to betray our scientific backgrounds. Why attract people to #ALT.PARANORMAL to actually crowd the bandwidth with their ravings, We don't mind believers here. You shouldn't either. People who advocate the paranormal have just as much right to rave here as anyone else. and #the writings of such zealots. I have no desire to stop the believers from writing either. You shouldn't be so closeminded. Give the believers a chance. After all, if you stop the believers from writing, we will never know if they indeed have found something. (By the way, you are becoming a flame!) #The so-called "skeptics" rhetoric is not new. It's a collection of #doctrines. It's called the scientific process. They rant and rave about the "gullible," yet they never #question the writings of their high-priest, James Randi. Of course we do. But he has never posted a belief about something outside the scientific known. And, so far, none of the believers who have taken the Randi Challange, which they agree on in advance!, have ever passed it. Actually that is incorrect. One person passed the Randi Challange. Which Randi admitted. Virtually ever one of the people who failed the Challange, which they agreed to in advance, have not admitted that they have failed. Most question the test and the conditions, which they agreed to in advance. It is amazing that so many people find the conditions acceptable until the fail, then what they agreed to is totally improper. If they had succeeded, I get the impression that the wouldn't have complained about the test. #I've noticed the observation of a number of pro paranormal people's #exchange with these "skeptics" as they call themselves. You are absolutely correct. That is what we call ourselves. I've read their #writing in other newsgroups such as alt.paranet.psi, and they all see #the same thing I've seen for years. These "skeptics" distort what you #write, and rewrite a new meaning again in their replies. Either they #distort or they lie. Would you please post some evidence for this claim? #I believe that whether paranormal claims are valid is a non-issue. Oh, you don't believe in it either? Or are you implying that claiming that science is all wrong is perfectly proper and that claims need not be accurate. "I see money in your future. It only requires a simple act of generosity on your part. Send me $1,000 and your wealth will multiply!" Earl claims that he makes $5,000 a weekend off his "intuition" (read psychic abilities) Does any of this come from people who give him money for "readings"? How about the poor people who phone the 900 lines to get psychic advice? Why shouldn't these claims of psychic ability be challanged? If they are real and valid, fine. If not, also fine. But whether claims are valid is a real issue. I #also believe that proving how smart one is or how stupid another is, is #childish, and showing how silly that person was, etc. I mean that which #ever side you're on. So far, you've violated this one by your remarks about skeptics. The generalization fallacy is a poor one at best, and mixed with the ad hominem fallacy doesn't improve it. #I don't intend to show smartness or stupidness, but I do *WONDER* why #people spend so much time and energy attempting to debunk the #paranormal. Simple, if it is real we need to know, if it isn't valid (to use your term) then people shouldn't be led astray to lose money or perhaps their lifes. It's questionable. Indeed, isn't it kind of fanatical? #Fundamentalist Christians spend a lot of energy against what they call #the "occult," and they stink like the people of the Catholic Inquistion, #and the witch hunters who legally hung people on this continent just a #few centuries ago. Over generalization fallacy. #So, much "anti" coming from the so-called "skeptics," makes one wonder, #doesn't it? Not with the evidence provided so far. Kind of negative, don't you think? Asking someone to proof an extraordinary claim is always negative. Especially when they thing whether the claims are valid isn't important. Why, indeed, do they #care so much? Because if you can't provide evidence for your extaordinary claims, you are doing a disservice to other people and contibuting to an anti-scientific attitude without knowing what science is. To me, a "skeptic" is just "skeptical." A skeptic should be skeptical until he sees some reasonable evidence that shows him that a claim is real. Extraoridinary claims require extraoridinary evidence. That should be obvious. I don't believe #the people who behave as they do are "skeptical," at all. They have #made up their minds, and they intend to try to prove their so-called #"truth," no matter who is or is not interested." Would you please post the evidence for this claim? Thank you. When a person corners #you on the street, and you tell him, "look, man, I'm not interested," #and he insists on telling you need to be "saved" after that ("skeptics" #saved from delusion) he's a fanatic, pure and simple. But the fanatic on the street is the believer. The skeptic is asking how he knows that he will be saved? What does being saved mean? Why do you push your agenda if you don't have any evidence or data of any reasonable quality? Why do believers keep acting like science isn't relevant to their claims when they claim things that can be checked? But I agree, the person who insists that extraordinary claims don't need any evidence and that it doesn't matter whether or not the claim is valid, is a fanatic. This started out with such real promise. But to make the claim that it doesn't matter whether or not the paranormal claims are valid, just threw me. #-- # ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ # ' ' # ' \\\\


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank