Last updated: 10/March/1999
Note: Opinion Piece follows
After running The Skeptic Tank successfully for the past seven years, seeing
the bewildering variety of scams that otherwise intelligent people can fall
for, one of the most fundamental truths about American society has become
impossible to deny:
Whether it be self-proclaimed astrologers, spoon benders, self-professed
"psychic sleuths," medical quacks, faith healers or prophets of
gods, the people who prey upon the gullibiliy and superstitions of citizens
of society all have one thing in common:
Indeed: Often these people convince themselves that their victims deserve
what they get; that they're only providing a "service" that their
victims don't have to purchase if they don't want to; that if it weren't
them preying upon the honest citizens of society, it would be somebody else
doing it so why not?
They never seem to run out of excuses.
Those who inflict their predations upon society exist solely to victimize
others for their own benefit even though many mistakenly convince themselves
that they're trying to help others (witness the parents who murder their
own children by withholding medical attention from them, thinking that
their gods will save their children.)
These people's motivations run the entire spectrum of evil, of course, yet
among the very worse of motivations is, in my opinion, financial gain.
In civilized society, laws are enacted to curb the abuses of the carnivores
among us. If people would behave themselves, a Democratic State wouldn't
need to legislate to stop their abuses to protect society.
Fredric L. Rice,
Chairman, The Skeptic Tank
Last updated: 10/March/1999
Note: Opinion Piece follows
After running The Skeptic Tank successfully for the past seven years, seeing the bewildering variety of scams that otherwise intelligent people can fall for, one of the most fundamental truths about American society has become impossible to deny:
Whether it be self-proclaimed astrologers, spoon benders, self-professed "psychic sleuths," medical quacks, faith healers or prophets of gods, the people who prey upon the gullibiliy and superstitions of citizens of society all have one thing in common:
Indeed: Often these people convince themselves that their victims deserve what they get; that they're only providing a "service" that their victims don't have to purchase if they don't want to; that if it weren't them preying upon the honest citizens of society, it would be somebody else doing it so why not?
They never seem to run out of excuses.
Those who inflict their predations upon society exist solely to victimize others for their own benefit even though many mistakenly convince themselves that they're trying to help others (witness the parents who murder their own children by withholding medical attention from them, thinking that their gods will save their children.)
These people's motivations run the entire spectrum of evil, of course, yet among the very worse of motivations is, in my opinion, financial gain.
In civilized society, laws are enacted to curb the abuses of the carnivores among us. If people would behave themselves, a Democratic State wouldn't need to legislate to stop their abuses to protect society.
Of particular focus in this web page, one of these predators -- a self- proclaimed "astrologer" -- rises above the worse of the worse "astrologers" to acquire special notice.
This self-proclaimed "astrologer" (who frequents Internet's alt.astrology newsgroup) has the unmitigated gall to charge his ignorant, gullible victims money for his "services." This is, in my opinion, illegal in many states and certainly illegal in the State of California (Section 57.10 -- See below and judge for yourself) from which he pulls this scam.
The San Diego police authorities had been alerted to his actions at least a year ago and yet the scam -- like most astrology scams -- continues unchecked. Quite simply, in a society riddled with drugs, gangs, alcohol, pedophiles, over-crowded jails, and pollution, the authorities have better things to do than to take care of these small time hoods.
What this guy's victims don't know (and most probably wouldn't care even if they did know) is that one Edmond H. Wollmann -- like all predators eventually -- has been caught repeatedly lying (see below.) [NOTE: Mr. Wollmann won Internet's coveted "Usenet Kook of the Month" award for January, 1998. Congradulations! - flr]
Now that it is known that this particular "astrologer" is a liar, do you think his gullible victims will ever hear a single word of the truth? And do you think that anyone who believes in astrology would care if they did hear the truth?
The history of scientists, magicians, skeptics, and the media exposing cheats and frauds tends to indicate that the answer is a resounding "No!"
[NOTE FROM EDITOR: The book in question has been published and is now available. Amazon.com has the book listed. Therefore mister Zadidoll is wrong in this part of his message. I have read the book myself, and it is a piece of shit--- but it DOES exist - dmr] [NOTE: See book reviews offered later - flr]
Subject: Ed's SDSU account
From: "Zadi" <Zadi@geocities.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:59:46 -0700
First of all, when I called the college this afternoon I was told that the school had canceled his accounts.
Second of all, I found out that a student need not be on campus to access the school's dialup server. http://www.aznet.net/
Everyone please be aware that this man who claims to hold a Psychology degree and be a professional astrologer and author is nothing more than a fraud. I was also told by SDSU that Ed does not have a degree in Psychology but is a full-time student.. There is no Astrological book. Sure he has an ISBN number listed on his site, but if you go to any bookseller (such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, ect) or even the Library of Congress and type it in, it comes as non-existent. Even if the book has been released a large bookstore would still list it as "Yet to be published."
This man has claimed that I've spammed this newsgroup because I'm posting what I've been told by the school's administration. This man has attempted to claim that it is I who is lying. It's easy to find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. Just give SDSU a call and ask them if he has a degree - they'll tell you nope. Ask them if he has any accounts with them - they will tell you nope.
Look up Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 98-96089 ISBN 0-9663532-6-9 and you too will find it non-existent as of today.
Again all, do not buy into Ed Wollmann's con games. Do not give him your credit card number for any of his "services." He has no legitimate services to provide.
You can also call the Better Business Bureau of San Diego to find out about this con man. Legitimate businesses register with them. He is not registered with them.
Section 57.10 -- Fortune Telling, Etc., Advertising -- Prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to advertise by sign, circular, handbill or in any newspaper, periodical or magazine, or other publication or publications, or by any other means, to tell fortunes, to find or restore lost or stolen property, to locate oil wells, gold or silver or other ore or metal or natural product, to restore lost love or friendship or affection, to unite or procure lovers, husbands, wives, lost relatives or friends, for or without pay, by means of occult or psychic powers, facilities or forces, clairvoyance, psychology, psychometry, spirits, mediumship, seership, prophecy, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, or other craft, science, cards, talismans, charms, potions, magnetism or magnetized articles or substances, Oriental mysteries or magic of any kind or nature, or numerology, or to engage in or carry on any business the advertisement of which is prohibited in this Section and Subsections.
(Incorp. 1-22-52 by O-5046 N.S., contained in O-574 N.S. adopted 12-28-34.)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:09:22 -0700
From: Edmond Wollmann <email@example.com>
Organization: Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications SAN 299-5603
Subject: Legal action
A copy of your untrue defaming page has been forwarded to the State attorney and my legal counsel.
I ask that this false and defaming page regarding my legal businesses and my published book be removed immediately.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
A reader from Los Angeles, California, December 3, 1998
[1 out of 5 stars] Integrated Astrological Trash
In a modern guise of attempting to adapt New Age nonsense to Astrology, Wollmann does a superb job. This book is laced with nonsense.
I do not recommend this book to anyone. My suggestion is that if you need a good paper weight order this book.
A reader from Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 24, 1998
[1 out of 5 stars]
Poorly thought out and poorly written.
The author of THE INTEGRATED ASTROLOGICAL GUIDE has a distinctive, even idiosyncratic, literary style, by which you may recognize his other (uncredited) writings.
Edmond Wollmann describes his book's purpose:
"A complete explanation of how we bring our early environment and beliefs into adulthood and create our reality and experiences, is explored and explained."
(I wish he'd explain how "A complete explanation... is... explained.")
Edmond Wollmann on paradigms, life-spawned or otherwise:
"Because astrology reflects life and all the 'Paradigms' that it can spawn, this series takes astrology to a new level of integration with this spectrum of understanding and knowledge in other paradigms...."
(Presumably these *other* paradigms are the ones which life *cannot* spawn.)
Edmond Wollmann shares his "*integral* conclusion":
"The horoscope reflects the belief momentum (past and present lives combined) and the resultant effects of such momentum, because the universe is simply idea and concept manifestation. The parental interaction is the catalyst that is unconsciously absorbed to manifest physically the best representation of the belief structure of the person involved, and the path chosen to unfold that momentum."
(So belief has *momentum*; momentum can be *unfolded*; and you chose to be born at a time encoding your belief so that you could check your horoscope to discover what your belief *is*. Do you believe that? Or were you born under a skeptical sign?)
If you enjoy explanations that don't explain, words that look impressive but don't fit together to mean anything, and sentences that don't parse or that resolve semantically to dribble and goo, then this is the book for you, and I wish you joy of it.
If you are amused by delusions of grandeur (more self-righteous than the Bible, more self-aggrandizing than Mein Kampf), read this book for laughs.
If you were me, you'd be regretting the time you wasted on this overinflated nonsense; reaching for headache pills to treat the effect; and concluding (to echo Dorothy Parker) that this is a book not to be set aside lightly -- it should be hurled with great force.
A reader from Stayner, Ontario, November 20, 1998
[5 out of 5 stars]
An Excellent Christmas Gift for the Astrology Buff
I found Edmond Wollmann's book to be well written and quite amusing. So much so that I bought several copies. In past years I did not know what to get my astrologer friends for Christmas. This year Edmond Wollmann has solved the problem by providing me with the perfect gift for the yuletide season. I know my friends are just going to love this book.
A reader from Chicago Illinois, November 19, 1998
[5 out of 5 stars]
If only we had Mr. Wollmann's book 30 years ago
Damn! What a great book. I only wish I had had it 30 years ago when I was in the Navy. I would have assigned it as required reading for all of the officers that trained under me. Heck, I would even have recommended copies to my superiors all the way up to and including those in the Pentagon. If we could have had the wisdom of someone like Mr. Wollmann on our side back then, the Cold War would have ended 20 years sooner
A reader from New York, NY, November 11, 1998
[2 out of 5 stars]
Too many words for too little said
I tried to enjoy Ed Wollman's book, but found that he has a penchant for obscuring his message all to often. Whether or not this is because there is no message is hard to decipher.
His writing style is interesting, if a bit obtuse, but I could see where he was trying to go, albeit with some difficulty.
He certainly seems to understand his subject matter, but the book left me feeling empty.
A reader from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 13, 1998
[1 out of 5 stars]
Muddled, derivative, kookish text cluttered with jargon.
Takes old astrology theories and jazzes them up with New Age buzzwords -- integrated, self-empowerment, transformation, diverse, archetypal, paradigms, spectrum, create reality, multiverse, the all, all that is, crystalline definitions, psychodynamics, experiential, perspective alteration, establishment of identity definition, psychalization, physicality, macrocosmic DNA, oversoul crystallization, co-fusion, et cetera, ad nauseam -- and into this thickening mix go Adolf Hitler and Roswell UFO crash conspiracy theories.
Wollmann seems almost incapable of writing a coherent sentence that actually says what he seems to be trying to say, without losing his train of thought halfway through. His spelling, grammar, and logic errors are numberless, but for instance he uses the present-tense verb "lead" as if past-tense ("Freud lead us to an awareness of the unconscious"), makes a noun plural by adding an apostrophe ("Life's paradox' and contradictions"), and begs the question by leaping to conclusions from unfounded premises. Example: "If we create our own reality no tool is as valuable in terms of self-empowerment than the horoscope." Aside from incorrectly using "than" for "as", this not only assumes that we DO create our own reality, it leaves unexplained why we could not create it as easily through painting or poetry or other creative means wholly within our power. A horoscope, after all, presumably derives from planetary positions we did NOT create.
Despite the author's hyperbolic praise of "my book" as "the best book EVER written" (significantly, he says "better than the Bible or Mein Kampf" -- ranking those two books together), and his denunciation of all who fail to agree as "spinics" (spin-cynics), no-one but himself and his various pseudonyms has ever claimed to find any comprehensible or useful feature in his text, save what was taken whole from other writers' works. This is a book of thorough crackpottery.
A reader from Nashville, TN., October 8, 1998
[5 out of 5 stars]
CLEAR - LUCID - DEVASTATING ARGUMENT AGAINST SKEPTICISM
A better guide for your life than the Bible or Mein Kampf. Refreshing clarity of thought shines through the brilliant prose. Best of all, you get a LOT of pages for your money.
A reader from Ballard, Wa., August 30, 1998
[1 out of 5 stars]
Save your money.
Badly written. Full of turgid, overblown prose reminiscent of the worst of the 19th Century's psuedo-intelectuallism. The excerpts I forced myself to read are all but unintellible.
A reader from Tuscon, August 21, 1998
[1 out of 5 stars]
A Tirade of Meaningless Drivel
This book is the worst piece of literature I have ever read. Just reading the first couple of sentences renders one into a metaphoric coma.
Whatever might be described as a `flow' to the text is continually interrupted by some awful illustrations, but having said that, there is no flow whatsoever to the poorly written text. This book is simply an abomination.
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Astrology is the study of the synchronistic interaction of the psyche,
> the physical world and the resulting momentums-or experiences from it.
All right! We now get to the "meat" of it. Ed then goes on to explain in big words how astrology, on a low level, must work, logically.
I will replace astrological terms in Ed's text with terms from my latest invention: "Toadology" Let's assume that Toadology is pure bunk.
If the text ends up contradicting itself, then the logic must only work for items that are TRUE, and therefore astrology, as presented by Ed, is TRUE.
If the resulting text makes equal sense, logically, as Ed's text on astrology, then astrology must be as silly as Toadology, or we must redefine Toadology as making just as much sense as astrology.
[Toadology] is the study of the synchronistic interaction of the psyche, the physical world and the resulting momentums-or experiences from it. When blended with other paradigms of the helping professions it becomes a powerful tool of insight, and guide to remediation psychologically towards redefinition and reframing of psychic material on all levels. It assists us in taking responsibility for the creation of our reality through the recognition and understanding of HOW these projected versions of our psyche and experience have been created, through our choices in belief and definition of the self.
The [toadoscope] can be likened to [an ariel] photograph of the [amphibian wildlife][(bird's eye view of toad activity)] at the time of your birth from the place of your birth of the positions of the [toads] against the backdrop of [tree frog positions] [(within a 2,000 mile radius)]. It reflects a web or matrix of [croaking] frequency, which is then interpreted (not known currently in a mechanistic way).
It is a map of the mathematical relationship of the [toads] to the [ground] and each other at the time of our birth and reflects individuality and identity, it does not cause it. The [toads] REFLECT the archetypal references that are inherent in the Multiverse holographically. These "ideas" are reflected in all that we see around us because we are one with the universe and are that reality. Physical reality is a projection-a version of consciousness in material form.
Perhaps this is where superstitious and uninformed beliefs about [toadology] being a mechanistic cause rather than a synchronistic reflection-comes from.
Here are a few of the unsubstantiated assumptions about [toadology];
1) [Toadology] is a subject that one either "believes" in or not.
[Toadology] is not a religion or cult. Therefore faith is not required for it to function. It is a subject that can be known and is operationally obvious once it is learned. Hence the concept of believing in it is an effect of the misperception of what it is. We cannot believe or not believe in something that we know nothing about anyway. Sciences are beliefs systems it must be acknowledged.
2) [Toadology] must be an Art or a Science.
[Toadology] is an Art/Science. The scientific aspect is in the [toadoscope's] construction, calculation, and mathematical interrelationship measurements between [amphibian] bodies against [the dirt] [(geology)]. The art aspect is in the intuited blending of [toadological] significators into psychodynamic awareness and the communication of this awareness and remediation to client. This part like all crafts must be mastered before [applicant can sue]. Physics is now demonstrating that the consciousness of the observer is intimately connected with the creation of the observed. [Toadology] contains science-but science cannot contain [Toadology].
3) [Toadology] must be proven scientifically before we can accept it as valid.
[Toadology] and science are two different ways of investigating the universe. The [toadoscope] like art, requires sensibilities not found in science. However [toadology] does contain science found in [zoology]. But [Toadology] is more than science as described above and cannot limit its application to such a focused and exclusionary subject as science. Science is an ELEMENT of [toadology]. Since [toadology] is an Art/Science only the scientific aspects can stand empiricism. The Art of interpretation may be open to debate as to style or application, but VALIDITY is always based on service to client or public-as is psychology, stock market forecasting, weather forecasting or earthquake prediction (which by the way scientists have never done accurately) NONE of which are totally empirically working models. Service is the customers or the served's decision and evaluation as to life quality enhancement-period.
4) [Toadology] influences human behavior.
This myth is the most difficult for everyone. We create our EXPERIENTIAL reality utterly and only as the end product of what we believe or have been taught to believe is true (although it must be stated emphatically that most of these definitions are held in an unconscious state and must be acknowledged). The [toadoscope] "causes" nothing. It is a synchronistic reflection of other aspects of the self and its definitions OF reality at any given moment. A [croaking] frequency determination based on the self's definitions. The illusion of external reality is just that, real while you are focused and oriented to it-but an illusion none-the-less "All That Is" or God is all that is, and we are all the different ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the creation that it is-eternally. Philosophers and Religions have long known that the "kingdom of heaven is within". This is NOT a new idea.
The value of [toadology] is in the ability through this reflection to understand these beliefs and definitions that we may possess unconsciously so that we can acknowledge and own them, once you own them you can redefine them. You cannot change something you do not own! Life is a configuration of CHOICES. Nothing in the universe has built in meaning, we give it meaning by the definitions we hold AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. We then attach this meaning to things, then we extract that meaning from the neutral props known as physical reality. [Toadology] helps us understand WHAT meanings we may be attaching to "things" and hence WHY we extract what we do.
Positive meaning in-positive effect out, negative effect in-negative effect out. IT IS SIMPLE MECHANICS. Psychological mechanics- which the observer then observes, creates, establishes theories of, propagates ideas of, collects data from makes hypothesis about and otherwise CHOOSES TO MAKE IT SO!
Yes - we create en mass an agreed upon collectively established reality that appears to be fixed. This is necessary, or we would all have no common ground on which to RELATE and share the experience we call physicality.
But that in no sense means that we are bound 100% to it. Each of us created the "hallway" of experiential choice at incarnation reflected through the [toadoscope].
Our actions-unless consciously acknowledged from unconscious belief and momentum-are just REactions to the prescription the oversoul (ourselves) made as a choice of general thematic "hallway" experiences. The free will of the physical self (the oversoul in its physical VERSION) then chooses HOW it will go down this "hallway" but go down this "hallway" we have already WILLED.
Our creations have shown this, that even COLLECTIVE limitations are mass imposed- we have [levitated frogs in a large magnetic field]. So we can redefine THAT one at any given moment as well. It is a preferential choice.
[Toadology's] best use, is for the enhancement of awareness, alleviation of self imposed limitation, and the promotion of self actualization and empowerment through self discovery and positive individuation.
"Do you not know that [you have a frog in your throat?]" [Some rude guy at the airport.] --
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise. Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional education. Anamolys are disregarded because they do not articulate the paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
Well, it makes just as much sense.
Can Ed explain why using "stars and planets" makes more sense that using "toads and frogs".
"Toadology" Copyright: Steve Terrell, 1997
I claim "fair use" of Edmond Wollmann quotes to lend reference and perspective.
Archive-name: skeptic/sockpuppets Posting-Frequency: monthly to sci.skeptic,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.earl-curley,alt.answers,news.answers Last-modified: 1998/03/10 Version: 1.6 URL: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/sockpuppets.txt Copyright: (c) 1997 Sherilyn
Maintainer: Sherilyn CONTENTS 0. Introduction--Mike Combs explains the origin of the term "sock puppet" on sci.skeptic 1. Evolution of the sock puppet 2. Q&A on sock puppets Is a sock puppet a multiple identity? Is a sock puppet an internet account? Is a sock puppet poster a concealed identity? Is that all there is to sock puppets? 3. List of sock puppeteers and sock puppet accounts Edmond Wollmann Earl Gordon Curley Sherilyn (yes!) 4. Detailed histories (the fun bit!) 4.1 Edmond Wollmann, alias hoovamoon, alias Zeus150000... 4.2 Earl Curley, alias Mary Jo Willy, alias...? 4.3 Sherilyn, alias Leonie, alias Sutrice. 4.3.1. Leonie, Sherilyn's Abusemistress 4.3.2. Sutrice, Sherilyn's Postmistress 0. Introduction--Mike Combs explains the origin of the term "sock puppet" on sci.skeptic The term "sock puppet" grew out of a phenomenon known as the "Curley Wars" on sci.skeptic. [Notes in square brackets -Sheri] Subject: Re: I give up...what's with the sock? From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Brant Watson) Date: 1997/09/24 Message-Id: <email@example.com> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:13:47 -0500, Mike Combs wrote: >Brant Watson wrote: > >> Since I first came here, I've read many posts involving >> some inside joke about Curley and socks or sock puppets. >> Jason's artwork was cute, but I don't get this sock stuff. >> Would someone explain it to me, please? (E-mail if it >> isn't appropriate for public discussion.) >> > >You know how cranks are bad about saying "we" and "us" when >refering to their one-man operations. Yeah, it's the editorial first-person plural. Or in some cases, as with Ed Wollmann, it is the *regal* or *divine* first person plural. >[Psychic, Earl] Curley's a pretty typical example. He's always >talking about his staff of workers, his large legal staff (so >you better watch out!), his group of gay friends who have >given him permission to call all of his enemies "fags" or >"fairies" without being insensitive or homophobic, etc. So >far, we have seen no evidence that he has so much as a personal >friend. He's General Manager for Globalserve, an ISP, so there >may now be some legitimacy to talk of a "staff", although one >not related to his psychic business. > >After a while, some skeptics began to express the opinion that >his legal staff et. al. were really sock puppets with which >Earl had conversations. A while back he was caught creating a >ficticious poster named Mary Jo Willy who saw things Earl's >way, and thought the rest of us should quit contradicting him. >He even had conversations with her, reinforcing the image of >someone who would talk to their sock. > Okay, thanks. Do you think Earl would like *me* to be his friend? Brant 1. Evolution of the sock puppet This is the earliest relevant reference to a "puppet" I can find on sci.skeptic. Subject: Re: A Note to James Randi & Earl Curley From: Philippe Schnoebelen Date: 1996/12/03 Message-Id: Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Earl Curley writes: Earl> I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than Earl> prepared to join the suit strictly for the hell of it. I clearly imagine the scene. ***giggles*** Earl gets his puppets out of the shoe box. "Mr. Allan, do you know what is happening on the net ?" [Takes a shriek voice] "No !?" [Back to Earl's normal voice] "A pervert is nagging at you. But he'll soon get what he's asking for ..." [Back to shriek voice] "Yes. Nail him Earl. Do you need me to post anew ? Telling them how great you are ?" Earl, you are pathetic... You are parading pants down in front of a world-wide audience of thousands. WAKE UP !! --Philippe Three weeks later, the concept had well and truly taken root. Lazzwaldo claims this as the first coinage of the phrase "sock puppet." Subject: Re: Wake up Earl !!!! From: firstname.lastname@example.org (LazzWaldo) Date: 1996/12/22 Message-Id: <19961222093800.EAA15571@ladder01.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Earl "voted most popular with hosiery!" Curley lisped: >but as I >sit here with a room full of friends (yes, gays were welcome > to) Why does the image of a person infinitely uglier and more awkward than Mr. Bean come to mind, sitting in a room strewn with crumpled printouts, empty cola cans, smashed beer bottles, and greasy pizza boxes? The chairs are arranged in a circle, with Earl in one of them, wearing 3 day old boxer shorts. On each of the other chairs is a sock puppet, with those silly googly eyes and a name tag scotch-taped on them. One of the sock puppets has a gay chat line ad from a sleazy weekly paper scotch taped to the back of its' chair. Wow, Earl, you sure are "with" the 90's with your tolerance! Philippe replied: Subject: Re: Wake up Earl !!!! From: Philippe Schnoebelen Date: 1996/12/22 Message-Id: Newsgroups: sci.skeptic ... Lying in the middle of this circle are other puppets with names like Randi, Pope Charles, twitch, etc. They are completely devastated after sustaining numerous stampede. They carries disgusting burns. They are transpierced by hundred of needles (Earl, watch your steps). Some have been ripped open by Earl's own teeths (don't anyone touch them, you could get rabid.) Earl, when I have had my own head severed, I did not notice it!! --Philippe Interestingly, Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has a page of sock puppets, too. Spooky, huh? http://umweb1.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/dnrc/socks/ 2. Q&A on sock puppets Is a sock puppet a multiple identity? It's more than that. A lot of people post from multiple identities for a variety of reasons. A sock puppet is something that is made to _interact with_ or refer to, the person running it. Is a sock puppet an internet account? Not necessarily. It originally referred to presumably fictional third parties, such as legal staff, which the poster would refer to. Is a sock puppet poster a concealed identity? Not simply that. Lots of people post without disclosing their full identity in every post. These are not sock puppets unless the concealed identity entities interact with each other. Is that all there is to sock puppets? No, the meaning of any term on USENET tends to mutate very quickly (as can be seen from the voodoo-style image conjured up by Philippe above). Already, alt.astrology denizens are starting to use the term "sock puppet" for anyone posting from an anonymous account. Hopefully a true appreciation of the origin of the term will help to pin down the meaning. 3. Summary of known sock puppets This is nowhere near complete. Edmond Wollmann PFAMA, astrology spammer. A "canned search" facility is provided to access Dejanews archives of most of Edmond Wollmann's postings at: The Edmond Wollmann Archive http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/wollmann.html "Own identity" accounts email@example.com (canceled for spamming, Sep 26th 1997) firstname.lastname@example.org (defunct, canceled after "multiple, seemingly endless complaints about his abusive behavior in Usenet", according to Jack Bailey of zNET.) email@example.com (active) firstname.lastname@example.org (active) email@example.com (canceled) firstname.lastname@example.org Various other AOL screen names. Known sock puppets email@example.com (admitted, Sep 7th 1997) firstname.lastname@example.org (Hoovamoon is a phrase Edmond invented) Al Simak "The Lofty One" , (admitted, Nov 6th, 1997) Suspected sock puppets email@example.com (Spammed Wollmann-style and was terminated at about the same time) firstname.lastname@example.org (posted some phony net abuse complaints on n.a.n-a.u.) email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Arcturian Various others. The latter five were all clearly forged posts to alt.astrology (with some crossposts) from sdsu.edu's news server (the same server which was used by Edmond's aznet.net account, and followed within days of Edmond boasting that, if he wanted to, he could spam from "3500 different accounts." Earl Curley "Own identity" accounts email@example.com Known sock puppets firstname.lastname@example.org (Mary Jo Willy) Sherilyn "Own identity" accounts email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org (dropped, circa late 1995) Sock puppets: email@example.com (Leonie, Sherilyn's "abuse mistress") firstname.lastname@example.org (Sutrice, Sherilyn's "post mistress") These two accounts were "called into being" when Edmond Wollmann emailed spurious "abuse" complaints to those addresses. I used them to post some spoof email responses which were also posted on alt.astrology. One of them even got a serious reply from Edmond! :) Sutrice is very superstitious, follows newspaper astrology columns, and sympathizes with Edmond. Leonie is only in it for the chance to "discipline" Sherilyn severely. Sherilyn is quite happy with this arrangement. I used Leonie to post a genuine spam report on Edmond on news.admin.net- abuse.usenet. Do these two identities count as sock puppets? I like to think so, even though they were clearly spoof identities. Why should Earl and Edmond have all the fun? 4. Detailed histories (the fun bit!) 4.1 Edmond Wollmann, alias hoovamoon, alias Zeus150000... Name Type(s) of post Last post made zeus150000 Wollmann cheerleader 10 Sep (found out) archimeden Ditto & FAQ spam 20 Sep (replacement for Zeus?) hoovamoon Monosyllabic noisemaker 21 Sep but did some long posts in Wollmannese Dog day Various "silly" postings. Late Sep-late Oct afternoon, Rasputin, Bradd Pitt, Fred "Flinstone", Arcturian and others Al Simak Apparently an attempt 6 Nov by Edmond to present his better side. On 24 Sep, following spam complaints about Edmond and archimeden, many cancels were issued by AOL for posts from the following AOL entities: archimeden, ewollmann, zeus150000, hoovamoon Edmond's AOL account was off for a short while, then reappeared, only to be canceled for good on 26th. I'd add a suspicion about astralplan, but believe it possible that this was a genuine wannabee "skeptic" cheerleader. The astralplan posts have not been canceled. It is possible that its irritating hoovamoonesque style was a misguided attempt at parody. After Edmond lost his AOL account, there followed a month or so in which he apparently posted from SDSU news server (as he had said he would do) under a variety of pseudonyms. Then he seemed to settle down and, coincidentally, a new guy appeared on the scene: Al Simak. This guy seemed to see things in a light eerily favorable to Edmond. Edmond referred to him in the third person. And then Edmond made a slip, posting as himself but using Al Simak's signature. Oops! :) "Hoova mon muhtmha (Hoova is home) Orion light." -Ed Wollmann, Aug 13, 1996, at end of a post "Hoova! mon muhtmah! In the ancient toungue!(from one of my incarnations in the Orion system-meaning I am home-a statement of pride and control)." -Ed Wollmann, Nov 14, 1996 "I also had a strong incarnation in 1600 England, a planet in the system of Arcturus, in Egypt as an astrologer/Falconer, the Indus Valley as an Aryan astrologer, Babylonia as an astrologer, Atlantis as female warrior, India as Falconer/ strologer again (instrumental in developing the caste system).. and a future incarnation as a 4th dimensional alien from the Pleiadian star system. Boy are we going to get responses to this eh?" -Ed Wollmann, Nov 14, 1996 "This began eons ago when incarnations from a planet in the system of Orion (Hoova) began an influx in the area we now know as the middle east." -Ed Wollmann, Jan 21, 1997 "I have found through the years that no one has seemed to really outdo Grant Lewi the Author of "Heaven Knows What", is there anyone else familiar with this text?" -Ed Wollmann, June 16, 1997 tries to drum up a discussion. No luck? Okay, time for reinforcements... "Hi Ed: The idea sounds great. I have not picked up the book " Heavens Know What" yet, but I can see why the idea of getting used to the Sun/Moon blends would be that important for anyone beginer or not. How would you like to ineract on this topic? What form would you like to see for the discussion? Discussing certain blends? Discussing the book or other similar books? Please let me know," -hoovamoon, Jun 18, 1997 "The EM opens to infinity at each end I believe this is what Mr. Wollmann is saying." -hoovamoon, June 20, 1997 "I think Mr. Wollmann continues to make fools out of you all." -hoovamoon, June 29, 1997 "Very well said Mr. Wollmann. It is unfortunate this level of insight cannot be sustained here." -Zeus150000, Aug 31, 1997 "Mr. Wollman I have found these explanations to be very interesting and from a very different viewpoint. The Gods are pleased. Do you have other writings available? Thank you in advance for any information you may send." -zeus150000, Aug 31, 1997 "Refer to spica's and Zeus'-excellent interpretation of astrological configurations." Ed Wollmann Sep 1, 1997 "Yes, let me thank you Edmond for the compliment!" -Zeus150000, Sep 1, 1997 "My birthdate is Jul 7, 1925, in Cincinatti Ohio at 4:00am." -Zeus150000, Sep 1, 1997 "Yes, Mr Wollmann, this is correct. He was also very much a person who considered astrology to be in the realm of his primal images."-zeus150000, Sep 3, 1997 "Would you please stop harrassing this man? The issue is astrology and I have to agree with Mr. Wollmann, I can't find one post with astrology in it by you." -zeus150000, Sep 3, 1997 "I assumed people knew that it was me, many people even called me Edmond when I posted as Zeus and some other names I use. Perhaps you just missed them." -Edmond Wollmann, Sep 7, on being unmasked. "Mr. Wollmann, how do you interpret the inconjuncts in this way? I have Venus inconjunct Uranus. Any comments would be appreciated." -archimeden, Sep 16, 1997 "Yes, thank you Mr. Wollmann beats the hell out of TROLL BAIT." -archimeden, Sep 17, 1997 "full-blown kooks such as Peat Simpleton and Ed Wollmann" -unknown poster 'Where is your evidence of "full blown kooks" buddy? ' - archimeden, Sep 17, 1997, in reply to the above "That was a good prediction Mr. Wollmann! My they are simpletons aren't they!" -hoovamoon, Sep 21, 1997 "Sorry, I agree with Al, these are simply your opinions-no more, no less." -Edmond Wollmann, Nov 6, 1997. 4.2 Earl Curley, alias Mary Jo Willy, alias...? Perhaps it would be as well first to get a true flavor of the great man's oeuvre [or do I mean his great maneuvers or simply his great manure? yep, folks, it's "quips made to ordure" time again :) ] You are invited to pay obeissance at John Atkinson's "Earl Gorgon Curley" net-shrine at http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/egc/egcnews.htm or "The Earl Gordon Curley Experience" at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/9602/egc.htm Back so soon? A little Curley goes a long way. Okay, let's continue. Though Earl Curley has been caught making reference to legal documents that are always _about_ to be served on various posters, he has seldom been convincingly caught making "cheerleader" posts. Perhaps the nearest Earl came to admitting the whole sham came at: "I'm really sorry to disappoint you, Philippe (Randi's favorite bum-boy) but as I sit here with a room full of friends (yes, gays were welcome to) and as we take turns answering your pathetic posts, the best and niceiest Christmas present I've received so far are the papers being delivered to you and IMAG in the near future. Read and weap you pathetic creature." -Earl Curley, Dec 21, 1996. The promised papers never showed up. There is no discernible alteration of style in Earl Curley's immediately recognisable posts, such as might support Earl's claim that his friends were "taking turns" answering posts at that time. The most convincing case is Mary Jo Willy, an identity that only appeared on February 10th, 1997, made 9 posts, and vanished as quickly as she appeared. Mr. Curley, you needn't worry about Dave's common sense because what I have seen so far from his posts, he does not have any. <32FEA15E.5BF@passport.ca> Now, I understand why Mr. Curley is so adamant to stand up to these types of people. <32FEA5E8.email@example.com> ... > Who gives a shit, the astrologers say, astrology is not a > science but an art or a philosophy. Yet they continue to > claim that they are "studying the universe" and purport to be > able to predicts one's personality on the basis of a > horoscope, ignoring any empirical evidence to the contrary. > > Joanne Grady Joanne, for someone who claimed she was not Steve Sabastian, I am afraid your vulgarity does not give me cause to believe you. I am sure you need not swear like the boys. Mr. Curley did however claim you and Mr. Sabastian use the same Internet Service Provider, so maybe he was correct after all. I will also state, that I am afraid that you do not do the woman's movement justice with your comments above or your previous messages. Are you sure that you are a woman? Mary Jo <32FE9C64.firstname.lastname@example.org> I have been reading Mr. Curley's predictions for over three years. Many of those predictions have beem more than accurate. As a matter of fact, our staff investment club reaped substantial profits in the stock market because we listened to his stock market predictions in 1995 and 1996. It might be an idea for you to do the same. <32FE99DD.6B46@passport.ca> Mr. Curley, I am not sure why you bother with these children. I have followed your career for a few years and you do not have anything to prove whatsoever. Is there a real purpose in accepting all the adverse comments from insecure people like MattG? <32FE9ACD.6AF1@passport.ca> Here is another of the Mary Jo Willy posts: > Ever get that beer, Curley? Ever find some poor harridan > sucker enough to go with you? > > Lizz "I stay out of dark, disreputable places--including this > thread--unless I decide not to" Braver Liz, I am afraid your disposition does show through. Do I hear a twinge of regret that you have not been asked out for a drink by Mr. Curley? Or is it that you are simply showing a jealous streak because Mr. Curley rejected you? I am afraid that your comments seem off topic so I was just wondering what they refered to. <32FE9D9A.179A@passport.ca> That mythical beer was to be the subject of some ribbing of Earl in ensuing months. [AndyBaj:] > Well Earl, now you have admitted taking yourself in drag out > for a beer. You said that MaryJo had gone out with you for a > beer. Well, now we hear the following: He then quoted the following account from Steve Sebastian: Subject: Mary Jo Willy Fact or Fiction? From: Steve Sebastian Date: 1997/02/16 Message-Id: <3307D9DE.421C@ibm.net> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal Sorry it took me a while on this one. I went to the companys branch on university here in Toronto and did a check on the name PI Investigation nothing showed up with that name or close to it; either as a sole proprietorship/partnership or a federal or provincial incorporation. Still giving Curley Q the benefit of the doubt. I called up a friend of mine who owed me a favor, point of fact he has a friend who works for passport online. I had him check the account in which Mary Jo Willy was using, it is registered to one Gordon Curley. Why didn't you use your first name Earl? I wouldn't have even bothered checking this out but what raised my curiosity was the fact that they are both running on Macintosh systems using x-mailer Mozilla 3.01Gold. Now if that wasn't enough she came into the picture just twe weeks ago and has never posted to any other bases or to anyone else except as a proponent of Curley Q. Shortly afterwards, Steve Sebastian added a coda to this post: Sorry I have erred he came on the scene as her for one day all 9 messages posted on the 02/10/97. I was thinking the 2nd of February for some reason and not the 10th of February. He came on the scene as Mary Jo Willy exactly 6 days ago. By the way Curley Q did you take your alter ego Mary Jo out for Valentines day? Curley has fervently promised to file suit against practically everyone who posted to that thread. Nobody I could find had ever seen or heard of these mythical papers ever being served. 4.3 Sherilyn, alias Leonie, alias Sutrice. [Playing the sock puppet game] 4.3.1 Leonie Edmond made a spurious complaint to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org, August 27th. 1997, which read as follows: Please ask your client to stop posting off topic in these groups. Charter and FAQ attached. This person seems to be unable to resist demeaning and simply posting for no reason in these groups other than to create dissention. Thanks [alt.astrology.metapsych charter and alt.astrology FAQ quote snipped -Sheri] Leonie replied: Thank you for warning me about the revolting behavior of that disgusting baggage, my client, Sherilyn. Please be assured that I shall take appropriate action on this issue. As abusemistress I take a special pleasure in my task, and she will definitely feel the heat over this one. Please do not hesitate to contact me in future, my firm malacca cane awaits your bidding. Sherilyn's Abusemistress. [Quoted email snipped -Sheri] [ In response to Leonie's first Abusemistress email, Edmond responded: It is simply a matter of netiquette and consideration. > Thank you for warning me about the revolting behavior of that > disgusting baggage, my client, Sherilyn. Please be assured > that I shall take [Rest of quoted email snipped -Sheri] There was some comment on Sutrice's posting, to which Leonie replied: From: Abusemistress Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Wollmann, Sherilyn's Postmistress, & sheer idiocy (was Venus Uranus Homosexuality (was house cusps)) In article <email@example.com>, "Mary L. Urquhart" writes > Why don't all of you embroiled in these little power > plays and control contests all have a mug of warm milk > and go to bed. After a goodly power play in which the firm thwack of justice held sway, Sherilyn the disbelieving trollop has been sent to bed, but _no_ warm milk, and no cookies. I have found that the young girls in my charge do not respond well to such coddling. Do I smell a bull around here? -- Sherilyn's Abusemistress "Spare the rod and spoil the fun." Leonie replied to a posting from Ann Waldrum. Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:04:33 +0100 From: Leonie Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.skeptic Subject: More on that trollop Sherilyn (was Edmond's failed attempts to bully people off group (was Jim Rogers 4 years of Obssessive/Compulsive Disorder (was Paul Schlyter and some other junk))) References: <19970912201700.QAA12434@ladder02.news.aol.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ann Shermann writes >On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:22:46 +0100, Sherilyn > wrote: ... >>> >>I haven't heard a peep out of email@example.com. I guess they >>feel the same way. >>-- >>Sherilyn >>alt.astrology posting FAQ >>http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/posting.txt > >How odd since the newsgroup keeps getting messages from this >supposed abuse mistress to Ed. My address is not firstname.lastname@example.org but email@example.com, the address Edmond chose to make one of his complaints (check from: line). I am, of course, a figment of Edmond's imagination--his fantasy of a dominatrix who can control the unruly Sheri (and, who knows, perhaps the unruly Edmond, too). Sherilyn is of course _tied up_ elsewhere at present, so is unable to respond in person to your post. firstname.lastname@example.org will politely ignore you (after their perlscript has emailed you an abuse report ticket), for Sherilyn's behavior is not net abuse. >Of course, most of these posts are from some >poor soul who make all real drag queens shudder, but they are >your friends, or your alter egos. What can you expect. > Believe, me most drag queens I know would only be shuddering with delight. :D -- Leonie, Sherilyn's Abusemistress. "Spare the rod and spoil the fun" 4.3.2 Sutrice Replied to Edmond's complaint (above), agreeing with his diagnosis: "Thank you for your email about the outrageous behavior of my client, that trollop Sherilyn. Be certain that I will ensure that she is chastized severely for this. She is a libra on the scorpio cusp, need I say more..." END
>From <> Sat Apr 25 23:22:26 1998 Message-ID: <$bE8pjAiImQ1EwKq@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:22:26 +0100 From: Sherilyn
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Re: Edmond's wonderful February (was Re: Good news for all Psychics from the JREF) Path: sidaway.demon.co.uk!Sherilyn References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <353E04A9.60B7@sdsu.edu> <email@example.com> <353FB028.36D3@edmond.hwo> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <35402751.2D22@sdsu.edu> <6+ftQFAOEDQ1EwYp@sidaway.demon.co.uk> <35403B5B.2B24@earthlink.net> Lines: 197 Organization: None MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 In article <35403B5B.2B24@earthlink.net>, Edmond Wollmann writes >Sherilyn wrote: ... > >> Well, it was in that period sometime that I discovered your old >> unauthorized cancels, In another posting, you raised the question of Gary Burnore's cancels. I didn't realise that Gary had cancelled any postings to this group, but understand that some regional hierarchies have rules against crossposts and that these are commonly subject to cancellation. > and Jack Bailey of zNet contacted me out of the >> blue to volunteer some information about the circumstances of your >> departure from AzNet--so I guess you were freed from any remaining >> constraints to pretend to be innocent of net abuse. :) > >You still think life revolves around usenet-boy are you ill. Jack Bailey >stated that I broke no TOS, but was exasperated by you spinics >harrassing him and that ISP. In his email to me, Jack Bailey did not say that he was exasperated with being harassed. I will point out again here, also, that I only ever emailed aznet _once_, and then only a joke email in response to your own attempts to have my ISP discipline me for daring to post opinions you did not like. Here's what Jack Bailey told me in an email recently: Correction for your sock puppet FAQ: Mr. Wollman's account at AzNET was cancelled due to multiple, seemingly endless complaints about his abusive behavior in Usenet. When I emailed him asking if I could quote him personally on that, his response was: > > Thanks. Do I have your permission to quote you by name? Yes, it's the truth, and I'm the person who carried out the execution. :-) > I guess I'll be crying all the rest of my >life over you and your campaigns to defame me. If you believe you have a case, sue me. > You spinics abuse this >group day in and day out. Evidently not. It's you who abuse, and you who accordingly lose account after account for that abuse. > Look at anonym he is the worst abuser on >usenet, he has no ideas, offers nothing of value and simply harrasses >people all day everyday. I've never seen anonym harassing anyone, nor indulging in any kind of net abuse. Don't confuse your opinion of anonym with the nature of his posts. ... >any idiot can see theres no >spamming here-except for the sex posts and money spams Nobody, to my knowledge, is alleging that there is currently any spam in a.a apart from the commercial spams. Are you trying to distract attention from the fact that you did, in fact, spam, and lost an AOL account for it? As email@example.com, you spammed a few dozen posts a day for a couple of days, on top of your earlier spams. http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/ > >> I recall you pumped out a cool 70 posts in a mammoth posting session on >> Christmas day, and whined that the skeptics had ruined your Christmas. > >"cool" mammoth" spinicism and emotive defect. Ruined my time POSTING on >christmas day, You don't agree with me that 70 posts in one day is a little high for Christmas day? You could have had your father round for turkey, chestnuts and whatnot, you could have given the pooter a rest, but instead you stayed glued to the computer for hours on end. >I thought perhaps on Christmas people would drop the >harrassment for a few minutes anyway-I was wrong. You were right, as it turned out. You posted some binaries (one of them quite large at 200kb decoded). This is a bit of a no-no on a non-binary group, but I figured you meant no harm. Anyways, it was Christmas. The respect and concern for order and free discussion that you term "harassment" is what keeps discussion groups running. > The rest of my >Christmas was fine-and most of those were complaints-you spinics are >great at leaving out minor details and making or attempting to make >people look some way you wish them to appear-but then I accurately >identified you as that when I started posting-well you asked for >accuracy and I have given it-even of your personalities. So what you are saying, if I understand the above correctly, is that most of your seventy postings "were complaints." I'm sorry, but I don't see what difference the nature of your postings makes. You are clearly some kind of obsessive, and allowed this obsession to spoil your Christmas. > >> The sheer volume and vehemence of your February spamming in response to >> winning the Kotm prize makes you a liar, however, and since you have >> been proven to lie habitually, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that >> you lied here, too. > >You see? Proven a liar-hehe, your requirements of proof to make me this >and that is non-existant, but for others to prove themselves you idiots >require a court!:-)) You want proof of your lies? A small sample. As Zeus150000, in September you lied about your birth data. September 1, 1997: Zeus150000@aol.com (Zeus150000) "My birthdate is Jul 7, 1925, in Cincinatti Ohio at 4:00am." -Zeus150000, Sep 1, 1997 You lied when you claimed I spammed, and you even posted Tim Skirvin's SPAM FAQ in the same post. Later, when caught for spamming, you lied when you repeatedly claimed to be ignorant of spam volume limits even though you had posted the very document that defined them. September 12th, 1997: firstname.lastname@example.org (EWollmann) SNIP! Spam is garbage in the store or on this group, although spam is defined below, I agree with kitty. Sherilyn's posts are garbage. [You followed this with a complete post of the SPAM FAQ] February 2nd, 1998: Edmond Wollmann I have lost no accounts from spamming except AOL by posting the McPhereson FAQ that I was told by admin Jack Bailey at AZNET was ammunition against you cynics and to use it when you disingenuously sent further complaints after I stopped not realizing I had reached the BI level necessary to be considered spam. You lied about the nature of AOL's communication about complaints made about you in September, September 24th, 1997: email@example.com (EWollmann) I have been informed by AOL staff (who are familiar with me as I created alt.astrology.metapsych) that certain cynics have attempted to remove me from AOL under the guise of posting off topic. Rather ironic don't you think? Warning; if this harrassment does not stop I have been informed by AOL how I may take action. A word to the wise is sufficient. Please continue with our conversations on astrology. Shortly after that, the truth came out. :) You also lied in October when you said that I had harassed you and cancelled the posts. I responded by putting my postings to date in a zip file on my website. October 25th, 1997: Edmond Wollmann and here again are tons of harrassment posts many he has canceled and some cannot be found now; Message-ID: Message-ID: Message-ID: Message-ID: Message-ID: [etc] I checked quite a few of these posts and found them to be quite innocuous. Ironically, days after you posted that plea trying to get my account revoked for imagined "abuses", you lost your own Aznet account. And then you lied when you said that skeptics had stopped your postings making it to some servers, including Deja News. When you took my advice and that of Deja News to use their server and post to fewer newsgroups, as if by magic your posts ended up with a much wider propagation. More recently, you lied when you claimed that I had been searching your electronic mailbox. I have sent a copy of the posting in which you made this claim to Michael Car. [rant snipped] -- Sherilyn| alt.astrology Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/ Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank