Subject: What Bruce Daniel Kettler has against Twitch Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:29:23 -070
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:
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.
Twitch's article follows:
Article 78 of 78
Subject: Re: IS "PARANORMAL" NEWSGROUP BECOMING "ANTI-PARANORMAL"?
firstname.lastname@example.org (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
#People interested in the subject are gradually losing interest here,
#since so many messages are ANTI-PARANORMAL. So many, also, are
#There are "flames" coming from both those for and those against the
#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
#I believe that those who find that they are interested in discussion
#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?
# SO-CALLED "PROOFS" that
# no-one is "psychic"
# there are no UFO'S
# 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,
#never will to people with closed minds and little or no knowledge of
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
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
#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
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
#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
"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
#also believe that proving how smart one is or how stupid another is,
#childish, and showing how silly that person was, etc. I mean that
#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
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
It's questionable. Indeed, isn't it kind of fanatical?
#Fundamentalist Christians spend a lot of energy against what they
#the "occult," and they stink like the people of the Catholic
#and the witch hunters who legally hung people on this continent just
#few centuries ago.
Over generalization fallacy.
#So, much "anti" coming from the so-called "skeptics," makes one
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
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
#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