mudcat.org: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

GUEST,Martini 28 Feb 06 - 11:14 AM
JennyO 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM
Clinton Hammond 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM
Alice 28 Feb 06 - 11:27 AM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 11:44 AM
Peace 28 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM
bobad 28 Feb 06 - 11:47 AM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 11:57 AM
Emma B 28 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM
Clinton Hammond 28 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Martini 28 Feb 06 - 12:11 PM
Purple Foxx 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM
Clinton Hammond 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 12:21 PM
Bill D 28 Feb 06 - 12:36 PM
Clinton Hammond 28 Feb 06 - 12:38 PM
frogprince 28 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM
GUEST 28 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 28 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM
cool hand Tom 28 Feb 06 - 04:48 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 06 - 04:55 PM
Bill D 28 Feb 06 - 05:13 PM
Rapparee 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM
bobad 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM
M.Ted 28 Feb 06 - 07:28 PM
Kaleea 28 Feb 06 - 08:27 PM
Bill D 28 Feb 06 - 08:37 PM
Cluin 28 Feb 06 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 01 Mar 06 - 01:02 AM
Bunnahabhain 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM
Paul Burke 01 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 07:55 AM
Bunnahabhain 01 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM
GUEST,M.Ted 01 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM
kendall 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 09:52 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM
Purple Foxx 01 Mar 06 - 10:14 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 10:42 AM
SunnySister 01 Mar 06 - 11:25 AM
SunnySister 01 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM
Wolfgang 01 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM
GUEST,Bagpuss 01 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM
Cluin 01 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 12:25 PM
Cluin 01 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 12:32 PM
Cluin 01 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM
Dave (the ancient mariner) 01 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,Bagpuss 01 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM
Donuel 01 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM
Azizi 01 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 02:02 PM
Azizi 01 Mar 06 - 02:05 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:20 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 02:31 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 02:38 PM
Bill D 01 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM
Cluin 01 Mar 06 - 02:44 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 02:47 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,TIA 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,TIA 01 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 03:17 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 03:20 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM
Bill D 01 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,TIA 01 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM
Bill D 01 Mar 06 - 05:48 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 06:15 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM
Bill D 01 Mar 06 - 07:01 PM
bobad 01 Mar 06 - 07:03 PM
autolycus 01 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM
kendall 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 07:56 PM
Bill D 01 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 08:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 01 Mar 06 - 08:37 PM
Bunnahabhain 01 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 08:45 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 08:51 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM
Donuel 01 Mar 06 - 10:00 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 10:03 PM
*daylia* 01 Mar 06 - 10:13 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM
Clinton Hammond 01 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM
autolycus 02 Mar 06 - 06:17 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 06:54 AM
kendall 02 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM
GUEST 02 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM
kendall 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM
Purple Foxx 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 10:29 AM
Purple Foxx 02 Mar 06 - 11:13 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM
Purple Foxx 02 Mar 06 - 11:48 AM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM
Clinton Hammond 02 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM
Bill D 02 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM
M.Ted 02 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM
Clinton Hammond 02 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM
Bill D 02 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM
Clinton Hammond 02 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM
Clinton Hammond 02 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM
bobad 02 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM
M.Ted 02 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM
Clinton Hammond 02 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 05:24 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM
Bill D 02 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM
autolycus 02 Mar 06 - 06:34 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM
M.Ted 02 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM
bobad 02 Mar 06 - 07:09 PM
Peace 02 Mar 06 - 07:21 PM
bobad 02 Mar 06 - 07:24 PM
Peace 02 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM
Bill D 02 Mar 06 - 08:36 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 PM
Cluin 02 Mar 06 - 09:42 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 09:54 PM
Peace 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM
Bill D 02 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM
*daylia* 02 Mar 06 - 10:48 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM
GUEST,Bagpuss 03 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 08:32 AM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 09:50 AM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 09:53 AM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM
GUEST 03 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 02:53 PM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM
Bagpuss 03 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM
*daylia* 03 Mar 06 - 08:25 PM
Bagpuss 04 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM
Alice 04 Mar 06 - 10:43 AM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM
Clinton Hammond 04 Mar 06 - 12:11 PM
*daylia* 04 Mar 06 - 12:37 PM
Clinton Hammond 04 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM
*daylia* 04 Mar 06 - 01:15 PM
*daylia* 04 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM
Little Hawk 04 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 04 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 04 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 08:47 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 09:19 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 09:55 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:25 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 10:31 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 10:54 AM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM
Bill D 05 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM
Purple Foxx 05 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM
Purple Foxx 05 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM
Purple Foxx 05 Mar 06 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM
Bagpuss 05 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM
Bill D 05 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM
Bill D 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Mar 06 - 03:52 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM
Bill D 05 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 05 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM
Clinton Hammond 05 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM
autolycus 05 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM
Bill D 05 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM
Little Hawk 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM
Wolfgang 06 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM
Bagpuss 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM
Wolfgang 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM
Gervase 06 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM
Bagpuss 06 Mar 06 - 01:10 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 01:23 PM
Bagpuss 06 Mar 06 - 01:28 PM
Bagpuss 06 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 06 - 01:46 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 01:47 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM
Gervase 06 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 06 - 04:13 PM
Purple Foxx 06 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM
Purple Foxx 06 Mar 06 - 04:15 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 05:17 PM
Gervase 06 Mar 06 - 05:20 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 06 - 06:37 PM
bobad 06 Mar 06 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 06 - 07:11 PM
Clinton Hammond 06 Mar 06 - 07:16 PM
Bunnahabhain 06 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 08:56 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 06 Mar 06 - 09:34 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 09:46 PM
Bill D 06 Mar 06 - 10:10 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 12:19 AM
Bagpuss 07 Mar 06 - 03:27 AM
Paul Burke 07 Mar 06 - 03:35 AM
Bagpuss 07 Mar 06 - 04:08 AM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 04:40 AM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 04:51 AM
GUEST 07 Mar 06 - 04:52 AM
Paul Burke 07 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM
autolycus 07 Mar 06 - 05:30 AM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 06:03 AM
Escamillo 07 Mar 06 - 06:04 AM
Paul Burke 07 Mar 06 - 06:05 AM
Wolfgang 07 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 07:47 AM
GUEST,TIA 07 Mar 06 - 07:58 AM
Purple Foxx 07 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 08:09 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 08:10 AM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM
GUEST,TIA 07 Mar 06 - 08:20 AM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM
Bagpuss 07 Mar 06 - 10:50 AM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 11:15 AM
GUEST 07 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM
GUEST 07 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM
GUEST,Microsoft tech dept. 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM
GUEST 07 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM
Bagpuss 07 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM
Gervase 07 Mar 06 - 12:51 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM
M.Ted 07 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM
Wolfgang 07 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM
M.Ted 07 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM
bobad 07 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 03:25 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM
Escamillo 07 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM
TIA 07 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 04:05 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM
M.Ted 07 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM
Clinton Hammond 07 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 05:44 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 06:24 PM
GUEST 07 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 PM
Little Hawk 07 Mar 06 - 08:48 PM
M.Ted 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM
*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM
*daylia* 07 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM
Bill D 07 Mar 06 - 10:27 PM
Paco Rabanne 08 Mar 06 - 03:01 AM
Gervase 08 Mar 06 - 03:34 AM
Bagpuss 08 Mar 06 - 05:14 AM
autolycus 08 Mar 06 - 05:48 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 07:17 AM
Gervase 08 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 07:42 AM
GUEST,TIA 08 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM
Alice 08 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM
Bill D 08 Mar 06 - 11:11 AM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM
Gervase 08 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM
Clinton Hammond 08 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM
Alice 08 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM
Bunnahabhain 08 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM
Little Hawk 08 Mar 06 - 01:53 PM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 08 Mar 06 - 02:11 PM
Clinton Hammond 08 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM
Bill D 08 Mar 06 - 02:24 PM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM
Clinton Hammond 08 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM
Bill D 08 Mar 06 - 03:10 PM
*daylia* 08 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM
Wolfgang 08 Mar 06 - 05:00 PM
Escamillo 09 Mar 06 - 03:19 AM
Bagpuss 09 Mar 06 - 03:49 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM
Bagpuss 09 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 08:16 AM
Paco Rabanne 09 Mar 06 - 08:22 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM
Paul Burke 09 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM
Paco Rabanne 09 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM
Alice 09 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM
Alice 09 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM
TIA 09 Mar 06 - 09:56 AM
Bagpuss 09 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM
Paul Burke 09 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM
Paco Rabanne 09 Mar 06 - 10:19 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 10:26 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM
Bunnahabhain 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 11:19 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM
Bagpuss 09 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM
Bill D 09 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM
Bagpuss 09 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM
bobad 09 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM
*daylia* 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM
bobad 09 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM
Alice 09 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:46 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,TIA 09 Mar 06 - 02:43 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Mar 06 - 04:09 PM
M.Ted 09 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM
Clinton Hammond 09 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM
Little Hawk 09 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 08:59 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:01 AM
GUEST 10 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:18 AM
GUEST 10 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:24 AM
GUEST 10 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM
Crystal 10 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM
*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 10:58 AM
Gervase 10 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM
Little Hawk 10 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM
Clinton Hammond 10 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM
Little Hawk 10 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM
*daylia* 10 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM
Clinton Hammond 10 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM
Little Hawk 10 Mar 06 - 03:41 PM
katlaughing 10 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM
Gervase 11 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM
Clinton Hammond 11 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM
*daylia* 11 Mar 06 - 02:29 PM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM
labougie 11 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM
Clinton Hammond 11 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM
labougie 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM
Clinton Hammond 11 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM
autolycus 12 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM
Bagpuss 12 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM
Clinton Hammond 12 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM
Little Hawk 12 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM
Clinton Hammond 12 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM
Little Hawk 12 Mar 06 - 05:11 PM
Clinton Hammond 12 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM
Little Hawk 12 Mar 06 - 06:46 PM
GUEST,Tabby 13 Mar 06 - 01:41 AM
Gervase 13 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM
Paul Burke 13 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM
Gervase 13 Mar 06 - 10:02 AM
Clinton Hammond 13 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 12:31 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM
Clinton Hammond 13 Mar 06 - 01:03 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 01:05 PM
Bunnahabhain 13 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM
Little Hawk 13 Mar 06 - 02:33 PM
Clinton Hammond 13 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM
Little Hawk 13 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM
Jeri 13 Mar 06 - 03:09 PM
Jeri 13 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
Little Hawk 13 Mar 06 - 03:14 PM
Clinton Hammond 13 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 03:30 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 03:33 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM
Clinton Hammond 13 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM
Bill D 13 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM
*daylia* 13 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM
Little Hawk 14 Mar 06 - 12:26 AM
Paul Burke 14 Mar 06 - 03:42 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 04:21 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 05:12 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 06:56 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 07:18 AM
Gervase 14 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 07:45 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM
Kweku 14 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Edwin Drood 14 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM
Gervase 14 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM
GUEST,William 14 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM
Bagpuss 14 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM
Clinton Hammond 14 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM
Little Hawk 14 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM
Little Hawk 14 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM
*daylia* 14 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM
labougie 14 Mar 06 - 08:23 PM
Little Hawk 14 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM
GUEST 15 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,the animal 15 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM
Clinton Hammond 15 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 06 - 03:54 PM
Escamillo 16 Mar 06 - 03:51 AM
Paul Burke 16 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 05:38 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 06:17 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 06:26 AM
Paul Burke 16 Mar 06 - 06:51 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 07:06 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM
Gervase 16 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM
Gervase 16 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 08:36 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM
Gervase 16 Mar 06 - 09:49 AM
Gervase 16 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM
Paul Burke 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM
Bagpuss 16 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 10:33 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM
Little Hawk 16 Mar 06 - 11:16 AM
Bunnahabhain 16 Mar 06 - 11:21 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM
*daylia* 16 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM
Clinton Hammond 16 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM
bobad 16 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM
rock chick 16 Mar 06 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,Anima 17 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM
autolycus 18 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM
*daylia* 19 Mar 06 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,Proud as Punch! 19 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM
*daylia* 19 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM
Bunnahabhain 19 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM
autolycus 19 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM
Little Hawk 19 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM
Clinton Hammond 19 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM
Little Hawk 19 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM
GUEST,Proud as Punch! 20 Mar 06 - 04:22 AM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM
GUEST,Proud as Punch! 20 Mar 06 - 08:27 AM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 09:21 AM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM
Bunnahabhain 20 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 01:21 PM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 01:25 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 02:41 PM
GUEST,proud as Punch! 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM
Clinton Hammond 20 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM
Clinton Hammond 20 Mar 06 - 04:54 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM
Clinton Hammond 20 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM
Clinton Hammond 20 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM
Clinton Hammond 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM
Little Hawk 20 Mar 06 - 07:05 PM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 07:59 PM
*daylia* 20 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM
Wolfgang 22 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM
Bill D 22 Mar 06 - 05:58 PM
*daylia* 22 Mar 06 - 09:36 PM
Little Hawk 23 Mar 06 - 01:27 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 07:13 AM
Paul Burke 23 Mar 06 - 07:35 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM
Bill D 23 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM
Bunnahabhain 23 Mar 06 - 08:15 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM
bobad 23 Mar 06 - 08:43 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM
Bill D 23 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM
bobad 23 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM
*daylia* 23 Mar 06 - 10:27 AM
Little Hawk 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM
Paul Burke 24 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM
*daylia* 24 Mar 06 - 11:26 AM
Purple Foxx 24 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM
*daylia* 24 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM
Purple Foxx 24 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM
*daylia* 24 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM
bobad 24 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM
Escamillo 24 Mar 06 - 12:55 PM
Little Hawk 24 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM
*daylia* 24 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM
Little Hawk 24 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM
Bunnahabhain 24 Mar 06 - 04:31 PM
Little Hawk 24 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM
M.Ted 24 Mar 06 - 11:58 PM
*daylia* 25 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM
*daylia* 25 Mar 06 - 09:08 AM
Wolfgang 26 Mar 06 - 06:08 AM
*daylia* 26 Mar 06 - 07:40 AM
*daylia* 26 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM
*daylia* 26 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM
*daylia* 26 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM
Little Hawk 26 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM
GUEST 27 Mar 06 - 03:39 AM
Bunnahabhain 27 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 27 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM
Alice 27 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 27 Mar 06 - 09:59 AM
Bunnahabhain 27 Mar 06 - 10:00 AM
Alice 27 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM
Alice 27 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM
GUEST 27 Mar 06 - 10:30 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 27 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 27 Mar 06 - 10:56 AM
Little Hawk 27 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM
M.Ted 27 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 07:00 AM
Paul Burke 28 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM
bobad 28 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 11:33 AM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM
Bunnahabhain 28 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 28 Mar 06 - 01:32 PM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM
M.Ted 28 Mar 06 - 05:02 PM
Bill D 28 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM
GUEST,TIA 28 Mar 06 - 07:38 PM
Little Hawk 28 Mar 06 - 07:48 PM
M.Ted 28 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM
Little Hawk 28 Mar 06 - 09:43 PM
Bill D 28 Mar 06 - 11:54 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 06 - 12:07 AM
GUEST,TIA 29 Mar 06 - 06:18 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 29 Mar 06 - 06:44 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 29 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 29 Mar 06 - 07:26 AM
Bill D 29 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 29 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM
Wolfgang 01 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM
Wolfgang 01 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM
*daylia* 01 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM
Little Hawk 01 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM
Bill D 01 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM
Little Hawk 01 Apr 06 - 05:55 PM
GUEST,William Shatner. 01 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM
*daylia* 01 Apr 06 - 06:19 PM
Gervase 02 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM
Clinton Hammond 02 Apr 06 - 09:54 AM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM
*daylia* 02 Apr 06 - 10:36 AM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 10:48 AM
*daylia* 02 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 01:30 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 03:00 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM
brid widder 02 Apr 06 - 05:06 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 05:28 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 05:29 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 05:32 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 05:35 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 05:41 PM
Purple Foxx 02 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 05:51 PM
GUEST,TIA 02 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM
Little Hawk 02 Apr 06 - 08:26 PM
Wolfgang 04 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM
Purple Foxx 04 Apr 06 - 03:53 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM
autolycus 04 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM
bobad 04 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM
GUEST,TIA 04 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM
Little Hawk 04 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM
Paul Burke 05 Apr 06 - 03:54 AM
Gervase 05 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM
*daylia* 05 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM
*daylia* 05 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM
Bunnahabhain 05 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM
*daylia* 05 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM
Little Hawk 05 Apr 06 - 02:16 PM
autolycus 05 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM
Little Hawk 05 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM
bobad 05 Apr 06 - 04:28 PM
GUEST,TIA 05 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM
autolycus 05 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM
GUEST,TIA 05 Apr 06 - 10:18 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 06 Apr 06 - 12:04 AM
Little Hawk 06 Apr 06 - 12:56 AM
Paul Burke 06 Apr 06 - 04:04 AM
Bunnahabhain 06 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM
*daylia* 06 Apr 06 - 07:40 AM
*daylia* 06 Apr 06 - 07:42 AM
*daylia* 06 Apr 06 - 07:49 AM
Bunnahabhain 06 Apr 06 - 12:39 PM
Little Hawk 06 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM
Bill D 06 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM
Little Hawk 06 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM
Bill D 06 Apr 06 - 01:48 PM
Little Hawk 06 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 06 Apr 06 - 10:39 PM
Little Hawk 06 Apr 06 - 10:55 PM
autolycus 07 Apr 06 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,TIA 07 Apr 06 - 07:45 AM
Alice 07 Apr 06 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,M.Ted 07 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM
Bill D 07 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM
*daylia* 07 Apr 06 - 02:12 PM
*daylia* 07 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 03:25 PM
autolycus 07 Apr 06 - 03:31 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM
TIA 07 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM
bobad 07 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 07 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM
Bill D 07 Apr 06 - 06:30 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM
Alice 07 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM
*daylia* 07 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM
*daylia* 07 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM
bobad 07 Apr 06 - 09:16 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM
bobad 07 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM
bobad 07 Apr 06 - 09:55 PM
Little Hawk 07 Apr 06 - 09:58 PM
bobad 07 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM
Bill D 07 Apr 06 - 10:27 PM
Alice 07 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM
bobad 08 Apr 06 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,Venus (Ishtar/Astarte/Asherah/Aphrodite) 08 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,Morning Star 08 Apr 06 - 08:47 AM
GUEST,HermAphrodite 08 Apr 06 - 08:59 AM
GUEST,Mama Knossos Best 08 Apr 06 - 09:17 AM
beardedbruce 08 Apr 06 - 09:22 AM
beardedbruce 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM
beardedbruce 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 09:41 AM
beardedbruce 08 Apr 06 - 10:39 AM
Alice 08 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM
Bill D 08 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM
Alice 08 Apr 06 - 11:35 AM
Alice 08 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM
M.Ted 08 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 11:58 AM
Little Hawk 08 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM
Alice 08 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 03:15 PM
Little Hawk 08 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM
bobad 08 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM
Little Hawk 08 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM
Bill D 08 Apr 06 - 07:38 PM
Little Hawk 08 Apr 06 - 07:47 PM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM
*daylia* 08 Apr 06 - 09:25 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 08 Apr 06 - 11:56 PM
autolycus 09 Apr 06 - 05:51 AM
Alice 09 Apr 06 - 10:15 AM
bobad 09 Apr 06 - 10:30 AM
Bill D 09 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 12:25 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Apr 06 - 12:36 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM
bobad 09 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM
Bill D 09 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM
Little Hawk 09 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 01:57 PM
Bill D 09 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Apr 06 - 02:01 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 03:22 PM
bobad 09 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM
Bill D 09 Apr 06 - 03:38 PM
Bunnahabhain 09 Apr 06 - 03:43 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM
Little Hawk 09 Apr 06 - 04:51 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 09 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM
Bunnahabhain 09 Apr 06 - 05:32 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 05:35 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 05:40 PM
Little Hawk 09 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM
*daylia* 09 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM
Little Hawk 09 Apr 06 - 07:33 PM
Bill D 09 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM
Little Hawk 09 Apr 06 - 11:43 PM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 10:59 AM
Bill D 10 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Paul Burke 10 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 11:21 AM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM
bobad 10 Apr 06 - 11:52 AM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Spock 10 Apr 06 - 12:23 PM
GUEST,Kirk 10 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,Data 10 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM
GUEST,Picard 10 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,William Shatner 10 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,The Doctor 10 Apr 06 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,Q 10 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,Spock 10 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,McCoy 10 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM
GUEST,Kirk 10 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Kirk 10 Apr 06 - 02:07 PM
*daylia* 10 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM
*daylia* 11 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM
autolycus 11 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,TIA 11 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM
autolycus 12 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,TIA 15 Apr 06 - 10:46 AM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,TIA 15 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 12:40 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,Aristotle 15 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM
GUEST,Mark Twain 15 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,Plato 15 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,TIA 15 Apr 06 - 01:03 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 15 Apr 06 - 06:05 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 06:44 PM
*daylia* 15 Apr 06 - 07:27 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 08:00 PM
Bill D 15 Apr 06 - 08:01 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 16 Apr 06 - 01:46 AM
*daylia* 16 Apr 06 - 09:22 PM
*daylia* 17 Apr 06 - 06:19 AM
*daylia* 17 Apr 06 - 06:32 AM
*daylia* 17 Apr 06 - 07:12 AM
GUEST,Neils Bohr 17 Apr 06 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,Ambrose 17 Apr 06 - 07:54 AM
GUEST,little tweeting bird in meadow 17 Apr 06 - 07:56 AM
Little Hawk 17 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM
Bill D 17 Apr 06 - 01:18 PM
autolycus 17 Apr 06 - 02:23 PM
Alice 17 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM
Bill D 17 Apr 06 - 04:55 PM
GUEST 17 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 17 Apr 06 - 06:14 PM
Bill D 17 Apr 06 - 08:24 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 17 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM
Little Hawk 17 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM
Little Hawk 17 Apr 06 - 11:02 PM
Bill D 18 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 01:56 AM
Escamillo 18 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM
Paul Burke 18 Apr 06 - 06:10 AM
GUEST 18 Apr 06 - 07:22 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 07:32 AM
Paul Burke 18 Apr 06 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 09:36 AM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM
Paul Burke 18 Apr 06 - 11:31 AM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM
Bill D 18 Apr 06 - 12:05 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM
Bill D 18 Apr 06 - 12:48 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM
TheBigPinkLad 18 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM
Bill D 18 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM
Alice 18 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM
autolycus 18 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM
beardedbruce 18 Apr 06 - 02:51 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 02:56 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,*da;ylia* 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM
Alice 18 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 07:35 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 07:41 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 07:51 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 08:09 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 08:21 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 08:31 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 09:03 PM
beardedbruce 18 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM
Alice 18 Apr 06 - 09:26 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 09:36 PM
Alice 18 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM
GUEST,kibitzer 18 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:00 PM
bobad 18 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM
GUEST,*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:32 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:37 PM
*daylia* 18 Apr 06 - 10:37 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 10:40 PM
Little Hawk 18 Apr 06 - 10:42 PM
beardedbruce 18 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM
GUEST,M.Ted 18 Apr 06 - 11:34 PM
Alice 19 Apr 06 - 09:35 AM
Escamillo 19 Apr 06 - 09:58 AM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 11:28 AM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 11:50 AM
Little Hawk 19 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,Martini 19 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM
GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River 19 Apr 06 - 01:58 PM
autolycus 19 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM
M.Ted 19 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM
beardedbruce 19 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM
M.Ted 19 Apr 06 - 05:19 PM
bobad 19 Apr 06 - 07:35 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 08:38 PM
beardedbruce 19 Apr 06 - 08:40 PM
M.Ted 19 Apr 06 - 08:56 PM
*daylia* 19 Apr 06 - 10:21 PM
M.Ted 20 Apr 06 - 12:20 AM
Escamillo 20 Apr 06 - 04:30 AM
autolycus 20 Apr 06 - 05:44 AM
*daylia* 20 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM
*daylia* 20 Apr 06 - 06:05 AM
*daylia* 20 Apr 06 - 11:44 AM
M.Ted 20 Apr 06 - 01:09 PM
Little Hawk 20 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM
*daylia* 20 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM
*daylia* 20 Apr 06 - 03:51 PM
Little Hawk 20 Apr 06 - 04:14 PM
*daylia* 21 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM
*daylia* 21 Apr 06 - 08:14 AM
*daylia* 21 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM
Little Hawk 21 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM
*daylia* 22 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM
*daylia* 22 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM
Little Hawk 22 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM
GUEST,Guest 22 Apr 06 - 09:51 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Martini
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:14 AM

I don't believe that being " virgo " makes me one thing or another, or that I am good to have a good day today because I am a virgo. I wouldn't care that other people believe it, if it wasn't for the fact that it annoys me that just about every " decent" magazine or newspaper gives up space to tell you your " star signs ". It seems like something from centuries gone by !

What do other mudcatters think ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

I'm inclined to think there is something to it, but the "Your Stars" sections in the magazines are just for fun really, IMO.

A few years ago, my singing partner was writing a song about new age ideas - she's a Virgo and like you, she is also quite sceptical (It's a common Virgo trait;-)). I contributed a couple of verses here and there, and my last line of the song was: "but I'm a Virgo and I don't believe in all that stuff!" Best line of the song, I thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

It's a load of rubbish....

Especially given that "Pluto/Charon" is most likely just a big pair of comets from the fringe of the Oort Cloud and not even a 'planet' at all...

Smart people, publishing garbage and making money off the DLDs of this world....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:27 AM

My stock answer to threads on this topic:

History of Astrology

Many Mudcat opinions on astrology.

Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:44 AM

My sign is Faeces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM

No shit!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for the link Alice, I enjoyed the article - but then again having been born a Virgo I guess I was pre-disposed to enjoying it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:57 AM

I would take issue with the article regarding what it said about no research having ever supported anything to do with astrology. Thats simply not true there are many pieces of research that show that the time of year you are born affects various traits. Most of these are expainable by other means than astrology though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

I'm in two minds.........but then I'm a Gemini :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

" there are many pieces of research"

Put up or shut up....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/Born%20lucky%20PAID%202005.pdf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:09 PM

Extract from above:

Season of birth is known to be associated with several psychiatric and neurological disorders
(Torrey, Miller, Rawlings, & Yolken, 1997, 2000), including schizophrenia (Davies, Welham,
Chant, Torrey, & McGrath, 2003; McGrath & Welham, 1999; Tochigi, Okazaki, Kato, & Sasaki,
2004), epilepsy (Procopio & Marriott, 1998) and brain tumors (Brenner et al., 2004). The most
striking and well-documented empirical observation is an excess of winter–spring borns among
persons with schizophrenia as compared to those in the general population, both in the Northern
hemisphere (Davies et al., 2003) and in the Southern hemisphere (McGrath & Welham, 1999).

PS I am NOT an astrology believer, just pointing out that season of birth is associated with other factors, which may have been the starting point for astrology, in trying to explain these differences.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Martini
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:11 PM

Right, you see I think that is really intersting, Guest. I can believe that seasons can make a difference.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM

Do I believe? Short answer is no.
Do tend to the view that a capacity to see patterns where none exist virtually qualifies as a defining characteristic of our species & am inclined to interpret belief in Astrology as adding preponderance to this hypothesis.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM

"A recent study indicates that people born in summer consider themselves luckier than those born in the winter."


Key word... CONSIDER themselves....

Interesting study nonetheless.... but it hasn't changed my mind....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:21 PM

Surely that constitutes a personality difference? A different outlook on life. Might indicate whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. Read the whole article, or at least the whole introduction to get the flavour that there is a fair amount of research out there showing differences in people born at different times of the year.

(PS Wisemans other research has shown that people who consider themselves lucky ARE actually more lucky, mainly due to their behaviour around areas of life affcted by luck and chance - eg risk taking etc.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:36 PM

"...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest.

You can find statistical evidence to prove anything, if you pick & choose the data.

For every Aries you show me that is short-tempered and resourceful, I can find one who isn't....and I can find a palm reader and a Tarot reader who will agree with me! *grin*

This is just another case of people "placing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it." They decide what they'd like to believe, then look for supporting evidence, with the parameters for "supporting" pre-defined.

Still, it's a relatively harmless game....until you get high officials using superstition to make decisions for the country!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:38 PM

"placing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it."

well said!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

With all the factors that can actually be shown to affect our personalities and propensities in substantial ways - heredity, birth order, parenting, education, economic background, you name it - I kinda crack up at hearing people ask "What's your sign" with the apparent expectation that that will actually tell them something about someone else. Hey, guys: we're talking about the relative positions of blobs of gases and solids millions or jillions of miles away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM

The difference is that the scientists actually test their claims. One study might not be enough to prove anything, but it adds to the amount of data available. There is of course the problem of publication bias skewing the research, but that applies to any area of science you could care to mention. If you want to dismiss the whole of science too, be my guest and go try and sail off the edge of the earth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM

I know too many people who share the same "sign" as I do whose personalities are polar opposites of my own to put any store in it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: cool hand Tom
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 04:48 PM

Can i just BUTT IN folks.Jees i allways give me capricorn sign away.

      Regards Tom,just off to eat the washing off the line..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 04:55 PM

I don't know. I think some people can read a chart accurately, but is that because astrology works or is it because those people are highly perceptive or have some psychic ability?

Anyway, astrology basically just doesn't interest me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:13 PM

What happens to Astrology when the constellations change to totally new patterns?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM

I think it's all wet...but I'm Aquarius.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM

That question was addressed in Alice's link to a very interesting article, here is an excerpt:

Another hilarious aspect of astrology is due to the astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. This was known to Greek astronomers by 150 B.C. and may have been known much earlier. It completely destroys the framework of astrology. The problem is that the early astrologers, for whom the sun rose in Aries at the spring equinox, defined the sign of Aries to be centered on the point of the spring equinox. But as the ancient Greeks knew, the equinox swings in a great circle, taking about 26,000 years to complete its cycle. Thus, today, the sign of Aries is nowhere near the constellation Aries! This detachment of the meaning of the symbol from the random scatter of stars whose arbitrary name originally gave the symbol its name and significance is ludicrous even to many astrologers, who thus disagree with all other astrologers by keeping the sign fixed to the constellation instead of letting it move with the equinoxes!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 07:28 PM

I don't really believe in anything--it occurs to be that beliefs are suppositions and confabulations that get in the way of observation--which, faulty though it may be, is the only tool we have to acquire knowledge.

Given that, it has been observed that the shifting of gravitational fields has a major impact on human behavior--and the unpleasant fact (for all you smug skeptics who don't realize you are just as irrational as all the "believers") is that when we observe the movements of astral bodies we indirectly observe gravitational changes--so, based on what we know, planetary movement would be a significant factor in human behavior--


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Kaleea
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:27 PM

If new planets (or whatnot bodies) have been discovered, are there more out there in our Sol system? Since these planets were not figured into the current zodiac charts, would they not be altered by that fact?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:37 PM

...and there is this butterfly in Brazil who may flap at a certain velocity and cause cattle stampedes in Texas.

*sigh*.. M. Ted...the point is, although *strong* Macro events 'may' affect behavior in developed nervous systems, (just as they can help birds navigate...etc..) what we "smug skeptics" object to is generalized claims that tiny 'micro events' (in the case of influences beyond the solar system, VERY micro-events) can **determine** behavior patterns at birth! (Not at conception...at birth...as if moving outside Mommy's womb suddenly makes us susceptible.)

Do they REALLY think they can show that every baby born in Mercy Hospital in Denver, on 20 May, 1939 is going to exhibit similar "smug skepticism" to mine? I have news...many, many polls have been done that show little to no correlation over a large, random population.

My skepticism is not 'smug', it is a result of looking at all the evidence I can find and evaluating various claims based on science, statistics and common sense. In almost all cases, it is almost glaringly obvious that attributing similar personalities to those born on specific days is highly subjective and easy to refute with slightly different points of reference. In the cases where sincere attempts are made to NOT be subjective, correlation is still often unclear and subject to variations in selected data. Where clear correlations ARE found, they are usually within the boundaries of chance. (some babies from 20 May, 1939 are bound to be skeptics...☺...the lucky ones..*grin*)

In spite of appearances, I am open to new evidence, although cleverer folks than I have done the math, the science, and the sociological studies and pretty well shown that those cattle in Texas most likely just were spooked by a wolf, just as my 5rd grade teacher who sold me my 1st encyclopedia most likely had as much to do with my skepticism as the stars & planets.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:43 PM

"A recent study indicates that people born in summer consider themselves luckier than those born in the winter."

Because they get to have beach parties and pool parties and barbecues for their birthdays.
In the winter, everybody's too overdrawn from Christmas to get you a nice present or throw you a big wingding.

So say I, with my birthday in mid-January.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:02 AM

Well, first off, BillD, I never said that you were smug--I was thinking of Clint Hammond, who makes a studied point of it--

We humans understand very little of the mechanics of the universe, and even less about the nature of relationship between our inner universes and the outer one--

For the sake of arguement, let us say that, rather than having a single soul, we are a confluence of many souls--let us say that all the souls are really manifestations of one of say, twelve different overarching consciousnesses, each with a bunch of subsets. And let us say that, by contractual arrangement with the creator of the universe, the mix of souls in each human is dictated by the position of the planets at the moment of conception.

Now the question is, supposing for a moment that this were true, how would we ever figure it out?
We, as humans, wouldn't be in a position to be able to see it happening--no means of measuring, and of course, no idea what it was we'd have to measure in the first place. Our minds would probably be unable to conceptualize the mechanism, because it would be so complex.

So the system of order would be there, but, because of our narrow perspective and limited information processing capacity, it would be obvious to us that nothing was going on at all--

As I am fond of saying, "All I know is, everything you know is wrong!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

Of course they're a load of rubbish that have no bearing on reality, but many people belive in them.

Some people belief that as they're a Capricorn, they should behave as if they are. As those who don't believe don't know what a Capricon should be like, they shouldn't display any bias in how they behave. The whole population of Capricorns is now, on average behaving in the manner astrology predicts.

It is also a form of madness that has no bounds. I know rational, intelligent, sceptical scientists who belive in astrology, and numpties who swallow all sorts of rubbish who reject it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM

I like the story of the physicist in the 1930s, one of the pioneers of nuclear research, who had a horseshoe nailed on his lab door. Someone asked him, "Surely you don't believe in such superstitions?". He answered, "Of course not. But they say it works whether you believe in it or not."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:55 AM

What's usually found in newspapers and magazines are solar horoscopes - predictions based on where the sun was when you were born. Interesting, maybe good for a bit of fun but seriously, any "horoscope" based only on the position of the sun is so general and vague they are best described as "silly". IMO.

Natal astrology, on the other hand, is much more detailed and accurate than a solar horoscope. In natal astrology, a complete chart is drawn up showing the position of the sun, moon and all the planets at your exact moment of birth. Place of birth is also very important - it gives the sign of the Ascendant (the constellation appearing over the horizon as you were born) and the position of the 12 "houses" on your individual chart. The sign and aspect of the sun, moon, the Ascendant and (some say) Saturn are the most important factors on any chart. And that's why some people born while the sun was in "Aries", for instance, do not show many typical "Aries" traits.

Like me. I was born March 24 -- (sun in the Fire Sign Aries) --- but --- the moon (ruling emotions) was in the Earth sign Taurus, and the constellation appearing on the horizon (the Ascendant) was in the Air sign Gemini. So my "fire" (ego, will) is often dampened by a penchant for pleasure, laziness, relaxation and all the "good things in life" (Taurus) and by a need to dig out and investigate and understand "both sides of the coin" in all things (Gemini). I'm actually more like a Gemini than an Aries ....

But again, a natal chart is NOT a prediction. It's more a description of the "house" you live in, the "playing field" it's on and the basic equipment you came in with. What you choose to do with that particular equipment, in that particular house on that particular playing field is totally up to you. Free will rules!

This is one the best astrology sites on the web, imo --- Astrodienst. Enter your birth time and place, and the computer calculates your complete Natal Chart, free of charge. Then you can study your Personal Portrait, for a detailed description of your Sun, Moon, Ascendant, position of houses and most important aspects (the angles planets make to one another). Try it for someone you know well too, and see how accurate the description is. But you WILL need the exact time (up to the minute) and place of birth. Have fun!

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

So you now have three or four different factors, each one of which can be predicting something diferent. All you've got to do is pick the one that fits. As noted above, throw the arrow, and then draw the bulls-eye....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM

I was meandering above--my real point is simply that, given what we know, the basic idea behind astrology, that the position of the planets has an effect on human behavior, is not unreasonable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Believe it or not, "The truly wise man is never sure of anything."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM

So you now have three or four different factors, each one of which can be predicting something diferent.

Bunnahabhain, if you'll read my last post a bit more carefully, you'll see that "... a natal chart is NOT a prediction. It's more a description of the "house" you live in, the "playing field" it's on and the basic equipment you came in with. What you choose to do with that particular equipment, in that particular house on that particular playing field is totally up to you. Free will rules!"

Funny how people see only what they want to see, mostly. And what they want to see is usually based on individual expectations and prejudices, rather than honest first-hand investigation and experience.

(Actually, the "factors" of influence in a natal chart are about as endless as the universe itself. I only mentioned what's usually considered the "top four" -- sun, moon, ascendant and Saturn).

All you've got to do is pick the one that fits. As noted above, throw the arrow, and then draw the bulls-eye....

Whatever turns your crank, B. If you're not interested or don't like even the idea of astrology, well then don't look at it. If, however, your neighbour does find it interesting or helpful, or enjoys studying it, what do you gain by ridiculing it (or them?).

WHen you know diddley-squat about a subject, having never personally investigated or studied it, you do risk looking like an idiot when you go ahead and present "opinions" about it anyway. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has a couple, and sometimes they stink.

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:52 AM

" that the position of the planets has an effect on human behavior, is not unreasonable"
Except that there's no evidence to support it...

"what do you gain by ridiculing it"
You've stood up for intelligence... Hopefully towards an end to Oogy-boogy-ness....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM

K, I just checked my personal daily horoscope at that Astrodienst site. I find it quite accurate and insightful, most days. That's because the Astrodienst computer uses the person's complete, unique natal chart for the daily horoscope feature, and not just the sun sign.

Here's what it says for me, for today --- (I usually check it at night, so I can see how it may or may not have "fit" with the days events. And I've learned alot about astrology and come to have great respect for it as a result).

Phony issues ***

With this influence, you have to show other people that you are someone to be reckoned with. Or you may have to defend yourself against an attack from someone, whether or not you have provoked it. This influence is most likely to produce conflicts, anger and resentment. The best thing to do, if a conflict situation arises, is to have it out immediately. If you do not find a satisfactory outlet for your energies at this time, you will be easily angered, resentful, irritable and quick to take offense. If you must blow up at somebody, make sure that you understand the real source of the conflict, so that it can be aired. All too often, conflicts occur over phony issues that are only symbols of a much more profound problem."

HA! Having been duly warned, I'm outta here shortly. Not gonna waste time and energy over "phony issues" people really care nothing about except as a chance to argue!

But I will say this -- my ex is an identical twin, and I have identical twin sons. My ex and his twin are like peas in a pod -- they get along great, are very similar in taste and personality, have been very "close" all their lives. By contrast, my identical twin sons are quite dissimilar, do NOT get along very well. I always wondered about this, and what I found out when I did their 4 natal charts was quite interesting.

While both sets of twins have almost identical charts (of course), the 10 minute difference in my twin's birth-times put their Ascendants into different signs. So while both twins have Sun in Pisces and Moon in Scorpio, my older twin's Ascendant is in Scorpio, the younger in Sagittarius. ANd yes, there is and always has been quite the difference evident in their personalities! However, my ex and his identical twin DO have the same Ascendant (Leo) as well as the almost identical placement of sun, moon and planets seen in twin births. And they always have been more similar and got along MUCH better than my own.

And I say ... Vive la difference!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:14 AM

Surely the best way to predict the future is to help create it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

WEll, we "help create it" anyway by everything we say, think, feel and do every moment of our lives. Whether we recognize that or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:42 AM

PS -- I find the ideas, insights and counsel offered at Astrodienst to be most wise and helpful anyway, with or without the astrological slant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: SunnySister
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:25 AM

Daylia- thank you so much for taking the time to write and share about your knowledge and exeriences with astrology. I've always been intrigued and have had my natal chart done too.

I'm looking forward to looking at the site you referenced for a refresher course on my natal chart as it's been a few years and I have no idea where I put my original printout. I will say that the chart and my friend who shared what all the houses meant in my natal chart were not only right on but actually helped me understand myself better and answer a bit of why some things "really" matter to me and some of the choices and journeys I've chosen to take in my life.

How fascinating about the twins in your life! I do hope that your sons come to understand and celebrate their differences so they can get along better with each other instead of the friction.

-- SunnySister, who very much is cancer


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: SunnySister
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Just in case- I think the link Daylia gave us is connected to her account. Best to use this one and create your own as there are limited amounts of free charts the site will make:

http://www.astro.com

It's an easy to use and interesting site! Thanks Daylia!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

The link in the 28 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM post is well worth reading. Richard Wiseman is a fine scientist of a quite skeptical kind. He looks for natural explanations instead of paranormal in all sort of reports/data/experiences. He's the man to go into haunted houses and to look for natural causes like temperature changes ("makes me shiver"), draughts ("felt like a cold hand"), noisy rafters ("there was a knock but nobody was there al all"). In the above mentioned article he first looks whether the data are there at all and then goes on to find natural explanations. He mentions a few but not all at the end of the article.

His findings, however, have nothing to do with the predictions of the usual birth chart astrology, and his explanations even less so.

Gravitational effects of the planets are so small it makes no sense at all to look for an explanation along these lines. When your dog comes into the room near to you, its gravitational pull is larger than that of all planets combined.

Now if the astrologers has said before 1930 that something was missing in the equation for the best of their horoscopes were still a bit off target and a ninth planet could explain the deviations, we would regard their theories with awe. However, it was not them but the astronomers making this prediction.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

Maybe we could do a little experiment? All of us give our birth details to one person (someone sceptical) who enters them into the site mentioned above. That person gets everyone's charts, and prints them here, without attaching the details of who they belong to. The we all try to guess which horoscope is ours. Its just a bit of fun, but it is something I have tried before. Using an astrology site, people were terrible at getting their own charts correct, but for some reason, the kabalarians seemed to be uncannily accurate. We are too small a data set for it to mean all that much, but it would be interesting.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

That site offers good quality printouts of all types of charts, complete with excellent explanations/interpretations, absolutely free of charge. I really like it -- enjoy, SunnySister! And thanks so much for your kind words and hopes for my twins.    *sigh*   Sun in Pisces, Moon in Scorpio is not exactly the easiest combo to reckon with under any circumstance (as you can probably well imagine, oh Watery One!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Sometimes it's the Oogy-boogy-ness that makes life worth the living.

Astrology however is pure squidge.... in my opinion, of course.

I believe in nasal astrology.
Pick a booger out of your nostril first thing in the morning and predict the day's outcome based on it's shape, colour and configuration with regards to the prevailing wind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:25 PM

SunnySister, thanks for posting the link to the Astrodienst home page. Much easier to navigate for first-time users. Should have logged out before I copied the URL, I see now. And you're right -- the site is very easy to use.

Bagpuss, I think that's a great idea! And I nominate Wolfgang, or BillD to collect and post the info, if either would be so kind.

I see people still don't get my point about the importance of interpreting astrological information as "descriptive" first,
"predictive" second. Astrology is "predictive" only insofar as the free will of the individual allows.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

There are better methods.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:32 PM

"When your dog comes into the room near to you, its gravitational pull is larger than that of all planets combined."

What if ya don't have a dog? Does my cat count? What if it's both of them at the same time?

"pure squidge..."
Nice word, squidge...

" I believe in nasal astrology."
It's very good to know that you're still in touch with yer inner 6-year-old, mate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM

He peed his pants yesterday.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

The site gave a remarkably accurate description of yours truly.

Yours, Aye. Dave


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM

Yer not supposed to peek yourself! You'll spoil the experiment.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

I believe that the true dimensions of the universe include multiveres whose gravity leaks into ours. I also believe that from where ever we are, across an unseen brane there are dimensions that have the unique hyperdimensional quality of virtually touching all other points in space simultaineously.

However astrology has the usefullness of a crock of warm urine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM

Too often the only thing that people know about astrology is sun sign astrology. As a person who was born 20 minutes before my twin I can testify that sun sign astrology only is a bunch of bunk.

And as for those mass media newspaper & magazine astrology columns-almost total garbage!

However, a skilled astrologer or even a credible astrology progam can provide an accurate personality profile of an individual by examining the relationships, if any between the signs & degrees of a person's sun, moon, ascendant, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, North Node, and South Node.

As a Sagittarius with an Aquarius Moon, and a Virgo Rising {Ascendant}, count me among those who know that astrology is a valid tool that provides information [along with the nurture-environmental-free will continuum-as to why people act and think and feel the way they do.

As to whether astrology can predict events-maybe. Maybe not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:02 PM

"can provide an accurate personality profile of an individual by examining the relationships"

Bullflop


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:05 PM

Let me clarify that in the case of my [deceased]twin sister and me, I believe that I believe that environment and free will played much more of a role in the way we are different than astrology.

Though we were raised together, I left home to attend college at age 16 years, and I never lived in my home town after that. In contrast, my twin sister remained in our hometown all of her life.

But -complicating this-I don't believe that individuals come to life as a blank slate. IMO, what happened in past lifes also impacts this life. Astrological placements may or may not signify this...

I believe that they do. But maybe they don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM

Good point about the dog's gravitational field, Wolfgang. I understand that cutting edge astrologers are now doing pet-based astrology in which dogs and cats and other common household pets often prove to be the most vital and determining influences upon human destiny.

And that explains everything. These three dachshunds here have totally screwed up my whole life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:20 PM

Azizi, I am so sorry to hear about your twin. I too lost a sister - my sister's identical twin. You're absolutely right about the relative influence of nurture, environment and free will. Thank you so much for sharing your story here.

But -complicating this-I don't believe that individuals come to life as a blank slate. IMO, what happened in past lifes also impacts this life. Astrological placements may or may not signify this...

Blank slates? I think not. And yes -- Saturn's placement, pre-natal eclipses, the Nodes of the moon, even certain of the *fixed stars* are often cited as "karmic indicators" (ie the influence of other incarnations). If the astrological "map" (so to speak) is interpreted correctly - a task which most unfortunately requires nothing less than a lifetime (or several) of study.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

"what happened in past lifes"

So it's bullflop on top of bullflop....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

yeah   and sometimes we come in as floppettes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

even flippin flappin floppettes!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM

sorry   my Mercury is in the 12th house   confers a rather 'subconscious' sense of humour they say    hee hee


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:31 PM

Some souls are such shits by nature that they can't face the thought they might've been here before and been even worse bastards than they are now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:38 PM

Some people are so gullible and desperate they'll take any answer that's fed to them


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

about natal astrology: Sure, I can see that IF it all had any basis whatsoever, the more detailed the data, the more accurate the prediction would be..(that's why I made the point of 'where' in my example)

But then *daylia's* explanation that it is not a 'prediction', but a description of the "playing field", (leading to certain tendencies, I suppose) merely provides a simple disclaimer for charts that don't seem to 'fit'. If many other obvious factors can influence behavior, personality, conflicts, oportunities, etc....why include star positions at all? No one that I have ever read or talked to about this can offer an explanation of HOW such distant, minuscule 'influences' might work their spell. (and I still don't comprehend why the precision required is for the moment of birth, not conception. Aren't my influences, if any, already determined? Is there some auxiliary notion that my mother is in control until the umbilical cord is cut?...or is it that we seldom KNOW the exact time of conception, and thus the practitioners have just ignored this and use what is easiest?)

Telling me, as M.Ted does, that it's all potentially so complex and hidden from our perceptions that many things might be affecting us simply begs the question....his statements are true...but trivially
true. If 'X' might be true, so might 'Y', 'Z' and all the rest of the alphabet....and if a potential infinity of things might be true, then we have little reason to pick and particular set to latch onto.

   I have no doubt that there is much left to discover about the processes, chemicals, physics, biology, sociology etc...that make individual humans what they are, but the sort of attribution prevalent in astrology fairly reeks of gratuitous, subjective, artificial parameters. Discoveries that demand our attention and consideration because they specifically can BE shown to cause and/or affect certain aspects of Homo sapiens are one thing...presumed influences based on semi-mystical concepts invented by our remote ancestors to satisfy curiosity before they HAD modern science are quite another thing.

If, as *daylia* suggests, you "... find the ideas, insights and counsel offered at Astrodienst to be most wise and helpful anyway,...", fine. No doubt 'suggestions' about dealing with personal problems can be useful...and insights come in many forms. If flavoring your insights with an overlay of symbolism suits you..*shrug*. I like mine kinda bare....I'll salt & pepper them to suit, thanks. ☺


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:44 PM

So you favour a dissipation theory over a distillation one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:47 PM

That's true, Clinton. "Some"? Hell, make that "most". They join armies and go off to spread democracy and end war. They buy lottery tickets, hoping for the big win. They vote for the major political parties, thinking they really have a "voice". They drink diet drinks, thinking they'll lose weight that way.

Really no end to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Salt and pepper's great -- just please, no ketchup!   

Bill, why do you think the sun and moon have such "distant, miniscule effect" on this planet and everything on it, living or non-living?? If you're talking about Pluto ok ... maybe ... but


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM

He thinks that because they have not yet fallen into his backyard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

"please, no ketchup!"

Well, there's something we CAN agree on! LOL

"why do you think the sun and moon have such "distant, miniscule effect" on this planet"
Because one can 'measure' their effect, and SEE how small it is....

And well, as I said above, Pluto/Charon probably isn't even a planet anyway, so all 'astrology' that took "Pluto" into account so far has been wrong...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:56 PM

If you think the sun has a miniscule effect on this planet, let's try turning it off for a week or two and see what happens. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

I went to the Astrodentist site, and it wasn't about astrology at all?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

I tried, but the ball-chain is too short for me to reach


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM

I still don't comprehend why the precision required is for the moment of birth, not conception.

The moment of conception is unknowable without technology of recent times, and an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:02 PM

LOL!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM

Interesting. Are there any pro-life/anti-choice believers in astrology then?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM

WEll, I bet most Catholics wouldn't admit it but    ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

"an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath"

So, yet more bullfop, holding up the bullflop that's on top of the bullfop....

You should do something useful with it and plant pumpkins or something....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

Are you as short of real stuff to do with your time as I am, Clinton?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:17 PM

ok   lemme see    In general, life is (traditionally) said to commence with the first breath.

Bet there's good reason for that, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:20 PM

Got all kinda of 'real' stuff to do.... I'm doing some of it right now...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM

Oh, good. Well, me too. Gotta go to the bank now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

"..an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath."

??? yes....so? That's how we measure birthdays. It provides no answer as to why it would be the point at which all the heavenly influences 'get ahold' of a life!

"...if you think the sun has a miniscule effect on this planet, let's try turning it off for a week or two and see what happens. ;-)"

sheesh, LH...talk about a straw man! (yeah, I saw the ;-) )

The sun & moon obviously affect the earth....we KNOW how they do, and there would be NO life without one, and a lot different environment without the other, so life with no moon 'might' be different...The outer planets? *shrug*...no science I know of claims to be able to measure anything from the gravitational pull (and that's really all we CAN measure from most of them)of more distant bodies that would seriously affect/influence/control subtle things like personality.

If astrologers limited themselves to claiming Sun & moon influences, I could see their point, even if I disagreed about details....but that wouldn't be very interesting, would it? All the mixed up mythology and presumed 'observation' and pretty diagrams and symbols and complex analysis of a myriad of 'forces' gives it a flavor, like an interesting recipe book. And, of course, like all pseudo-sciences like phrenology, palmistry, Tarot and crystal-ball reading, no one can exactly 'prove' it isn't 'getting' something we need to know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This "you can't prove it wrong, so it must...ummm ...might.. be true" attitude is what really scares me. Stuff you live your life by ought to have a firmer basis. I am told that there is good evidence that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers and seriously inserted various opinions into Ronnie's decision making process. No one, least of all Nancy, will confirm this...but.....lawsy!

There are reasons why I poke & prod at people's Sacred Cows and favorite superstitions....what people believe affects how they act, vote, buy, teach, and pass on to their kids, and I'd like to think that each generation KNOWS more than the last...not just plays the old tunes a little differently.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

I do the mix-up-the-horoscopes-and-see-if-they-can-correctly-identify-their-own game with my 6 through 8th grade science club every year. Of course they can't get it right at a rate above random chance, but when the game is over, they read their "real" one and invariably, many say something like "Oh yeah, this fits much better". Just got through showing what hooey it is, and they draw the bulls-eye around the dart anyhow. Powerful stuff this belief.

Now, about dowsing...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

dowsing...

More hogwash


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:48 PM

dowsing is useful if you need to wash a LOT of hogs.... *grin*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:15 PM

Now look, Bill D, I have held off talking about it till now, but the real fact of life on this planet, the one fact that really matters, the one beside which all else pales into insignificance, is this:

In Tibet there is a holy dog. He is known as "L'i the Enlightened One". He dwells in a secret cave that the Chinese Army was never able to find. L'i is in charge of all humanity by means of a sort of mind-meld that he does with the human cerebral cortex. He is attempting to gradually wean us away from our destructive and materialistic nature and toward universal brotherhood. L'i manifests on many different worlds in different forms, but on this world he is in the form of a dog. L'i moves in mysterious ways. No one can comprehend the things he does, but without him all would fall into chaos. If humanity fails to be receptive enough to L'i's guidance in the next 7 years, then gigantic cataclysms will be unleashed that will eliminate 99.3 % of the human population. Sceptics such as yourself will be among the first to go. After that, if it happens, humanity will be given another chance to start from scratch in a world swept clean of high technology, corporate logos, an pizza. Total philistines like Clinton Hammond are not expected to survive the cataclysms, but if they do they will be put to work as beasts of burden (it's all they're really good for). One way or another L'i is going to see that the Plan is implemented successfully on this planet before the year 2013. So it's all or nothing. I know that you won't believe any of this, so tough shit. It's going to happen. Doesn't make any difference what you think about it. Your opinions are superfluous. I've paid close attention to everything you have said over the past few years on this forum, and I have to say it's a darned shame when I think of the time I wasted in so doing. I could have been learning how to juggle jelly beans instead! That would have been of some use in the times to come. Now call up Bobert, see if he can send you one of those Wes Ginny slide rules, and calculate your chances of survival when the shit hits the fan. They're not good.


(cackling madly as I oil the hinges on the escape pod...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM

I think yer escape pod escaped without you LH!

LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:01 PM

wow! I had no idea! ...and you say L'i transmitted the knowlege of this impending doom to you personally? Channeling Shatner again, I presume!

Gigantic cataclysms that pick skeptics out of the crowds of brain-dead sheep ....uhhhh, open-minded seekers, huh? What WILL advanced technology come up with next?

*sigh*...I can see I'm gonna have to work up an escape pod of my own...one that doesn't rely on rusty hinges...☺

Seven years oughta be enough time to lay in a supply of pizza for the trip to this new planet....you DO realize I'll follow you wherever you go, don't you? (They got Enlightened Dogs up there?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:03 PM

LH

Have you been reading Lobsang Rampa again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM

As someone who does astrology, I'm really not sure at all if it's worth entering the fray, but just a few random comments.

A philosophy tutor of mine once said that the views of anyone who has not studied the subject they are discussing can be pretty safely discounted as of no value.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.

Most of the post here show the posters speak of that which they know not. All their over-familiar views have been dealt with repeatedly in reputable astrological works. Please return when you made some decent examination of astrology - the material is easily available.

Of course most of the posters are not going to - that's your right and priviledge, as is freedom of expression. However that doesn't give weight or add weight to your views. As it happens.

Real astrologers, incidentally, don't predict in the ways you seem to be demanding. Prediction is not the heart of the subject. Nor is planetary influence. The weltanschauung of astrology is somewhat different from standard western science.

It might be worth pointing out that, amazingly enough, science is and has often had fierce arguments, some still unresolved. A site worth looking at is www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html, where there are many contributions from scientists on the question "What do you believe even though you can't prove it?". And for an interesting discussion about how science has often progrssed in its history by some decidedly dodgy and not very rational procedures, se Pauk Feyerabnd's "Against Method".

I sometimes use astrology therapeutically, as did Jung (he saw it as a useful short-cut. I do so because astrology is far more complicated than your notions of prediction allow. Proper astrologers these days do not say your horoscope lays out what will just happen. That's because they think we have free will. A good analogy. Your horoscope, which details your planets in their signs,houses and relationships to each other etc.etc., is THE HAND YOU WERE DEALT. However, you have free will, which is about HOW YOU PLAY YOUR HAND.

To those interested, having Gemini rising may have something to do with my wordiness;a Libran Moon has some connection with my wish for level-headedness, and fairness in this debate (NO Shambles, but anger anyway); a Taurean Mars means a tough fighter; and Cancer Sun/Libran Moon could lead me not to bother and retire in despair to the sofa after a while if there is no fairness in the debate, but MERE anger or vituperation.

Yes, I'm aware I started angry - more frustrated, really, at prejudice (pre - before;judice - judging =   i.e. like delivering the judgment at the BEGINNING of the trial).

I'm up for open-minded debate. Otherwise, it'll be Gordon Allport's "The Nature of Prejudice" at 3769 paces.

Or we could talk about something else. Not obsessive, me.

That's it for now,I'm off to bed. 'night all.

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM

One day I read my horoscope and it said I would be getting a considerable sum of money. I went to the post office as usual, and there was a royalty check for a pretty tidy sum. Co incidence? sure, but it was nice anyway.
On balance, I have had a lot more days when NO checks came in the mail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:56 PM

" anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it"

I've studied it enough to know it's a load of bullshit....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM

golly, Clinton...you give skeptics a bad name...☺

I know, I know...you just 'calls 'em like you sees 'em'....

(we Western boys call that "shootin' from the hip")


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:15 PM

Har! Har! Yeah, bobad, I read a whole bunch of Lobsang Rampa years ago. All of it. Pretty intriguing stuff. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

And if it doesn't....well, too bad! L'i the Enlightened One ain't gonna waste valuable spiritual energy keepin' your sorry ass safe when the walls cave in. No more pizza, baby. And no more nachos either. Just good, clean macrobiotic food grown out on the land and picked fresh by the hands that grew it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:37 PM

The burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

You want to really prove/disprove this? Here's how.

You randomly select batches of say 20 people, all born in the same year. You produce a reasonable number of sample groups, with a good age spread, fom children to the elderly, say 15 groups. That's 300 people, which is a reasonable size for a preliminary trial.

You have a panel of expert astrologers, with the exact infomation of the births, and they produce predictions, which are compared to a log of significant events of the subject's day, by a neutral third party.

If there is anything in astrology, there should be a better than random maching made between the logs and the predictions.

You repat a trial like that a number of times, prefably in Western, Asian and African countries, and you might get a reliable result.

Can anyone else think of a better way to do something approaching a double-blind trial in this area?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:45 PM

A philosophy tutor of mine once said that the views of anyone who has not studied the subject they are discussing can be pretty safely discounted as of no value.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.


Exactly. And that's why I'm taking Clinton's last comment with a big grain of salt. Anyone who has seriously studied astrology for even a short period of time knows -- not believes, but knows (there's a mighty important difference between those two words!) -- the valuable truths and insights it has to offer.

And yes, I do know all about wordiness and Gemini Rising, Ivor. Gives a bit of the "jack-of-all-trades" syndrome too, at least in my case.

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:51 PM

That's only if you think there has to BE a burden of proof in the first place, TIA...I don't necessarily see that there does.

There are many wonderful things in life which cannot be proven and never will be, but can only be experienced. In saying that, however, I am neither defending nor attacking astrology. I don't give a dang about astrology one way or another.

The concept of "burden of proof" is one most beloved by sceptics when they can trot it out as an objection to things that can't be proven anyway (or disproven), but which they don't believe in or care for (for their own emotional reasons). It's like a suit of armour. It appears very strong. A suit of armour, however, is of no useful application in a jello wrestling contest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM

Actually in real life, the onus of proof is always on the one who needs or wants or makes the demand for "proof".

You really want "proof", TIA? Do what I do. GEt off your butt, get out there and find it. Don't trust what others say, no matter how lettered or respectable or whatever. Go find it for yourself.

And if you can't be bothered going to all that effort, well then it's really not all that important to you, is it? And that's just fine too, as long as you don't bother people who have made that effort with "extraordinary demands".

I gladly share knowledge and experience gleaned through a lifetime of study and effort and experience with those who are honestly interested. By the same token, I'm certainly never obliged to relieve anyone else of their own ignorance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:00 PM

Astrology is a cottage industry that poor people can play with a minimum of education. Goof for them if it improves their situation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:03 PM

So is growing pot plants. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:13 PM

Donuel, the most knowledgable, powerful and wealthy have always indulged themselves in the very best of all things; including, quite regularly, the very best of astrological information and counsel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

No doubt about that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM

I'm astounded how strongly otherwise intelligent seeming people can cling to their stupidstitions....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:17 AM

It was once thought absolutely stupid for anyone to say that the earth moves round the sun.

"Look sonny,"they'd say,"In the morning, the sun's THERE "(pointing one way)."In the evening, it's there" pointing in the opposite direction)"OBVIOUSLY the sun goes round the earth."

Clinton "I've studied it enough to know it's a lot of bullshit."
As the 'tec says in "Farewell,My Lovely" ("Murder My Sweet" in the US)(1944, screenplay John Saxton),"That's a very interesting comment, but it leaves me rather in the dark." Would care to , I think you'd say 'Put up', I'd rather say, offer expanded information about your study of astrology?

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:54 AM

Ah Ivor -- you're back. Good! I've been pondering your comment -

Real astrologers, incidentally, don't predict in the ways you seem to be demanding. Prediction is not the heart of the subject. Nor is planetary influence. The weltanschauung of astrology is somewhat different from standard western science.

- and wondering, would you expand on this a little please? If not prediction or the influence of the stars and planets, what do you see as the heart of the subject of astrology?

(PS I see that transiting Mars entered my 1st House yesterday - Aries energy firing up the ole Gemini Rising. Hmmm.   No wonder I'm still wrestling with the mood for wrangling. Bring it on I say! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

"Never trash another's religion, it's no sillier than your own." Same goes for any belief that can't be proven.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM

*daylia* says:

"GEt off your butt, get out there and find it"

See my earler post regarding annual (failed) testing. Spend very little time on my butt. As a working scientist, spend a whole lot of time "out there finding it".

*daylia* also says:

"Don't trust what others say"

*******Exactly!********

Trust me, I have no "emotional armour". I just made a decision years ago to apply the same standards of judgement in all phases of my life. If someone says they can predict a lot about me just by knowing my exact time and place of birth, I will apply the same standard of judgement as I would if someone told me I could safely step off the roof holding this here carpet 'cause it can fly. And *I* am not going to step off the roof to prove that it *doesn't* fly.

I will revise:

For me, the burden of proof rests with the claimant.
For me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

As a purely hypothetical, if I were to PM a volunteer my exact (to the minute) time and date of birth, as well as the latitude and longitude (to the ninth decimal place in degrees) of my birth, could this volunteer PM back any information about me that I have not already revealed in a prior posting? (Not actually posing this challenge, nor "baiting a trap", just truly curious whether anyone thinks astrology could pass this test).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

kendall, "proof" is plentiful, and very easy to come by. The only ones who think otherwise are those who demand that someone else provide the "proof" for them, or who'd rather wait all safe and snug and sound, for the Blessings and Approval of the Great God Science before they investigate it for themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

OOPS. That was me at 7:57. Sorry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

Science is a method.

It is (subconciously or unknowingly) used even by its detractors when a truly life and death decision is made.

No one sets foot on a flying machine that has not been proven (in the scientific sense) to actually fly.

I am not denigrating anyone's personal experience, nor claiming that science can know everything. But I am comfortable with being surrounded by a vast array of phenomena that are as-yet unexplained, and am willing to wait for explanations that are true for all observers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

The fact that other people believe in things you do not believe in (and they virtually all do...) should not be the cause of offense or confrontation, it should not demand that one rise in opposition or contradiction, but rather stimulate one's curiosity. Wouldn't that be a more useful reaction than continually attacking and deriding other people's beliefs just to prove that you are smarter, wiser, more realistic or better informed than they are? What if you are? Does that mean you get a special prize or something? Who really cares? (Remember, EVERYONE thinks that what they believe makes sense....and it does, to them. That will never change. You can't change it, and it's not your business to browbeat everyone else in the world into agreeing with you about everything. It will not win you any awards at the conclusion of your limited existence here nor will it succeed in making you a better person than those you have disagreed with.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

WEll, studying astrology is not a life or death matter, TIA. It's more of a curiousity; an area of study that many people find revealing, fascinating, helpful, insightful -- but it's certainly no threat to anyone, or necessary for survival.

As a purely hypothetical, if I were to PM a volunteer my exact (to the minute) time and date of birth, as well as the latitude and longitude (to the ninth decimal place in degrees) of my birth, could this volunteer PM back any information about me that I have not already revealed in a prior posting? (Not actually posing this challenge, nor "baiting a trap", just truly curious whether anyone thinks astrology could pass this test).

Natal charts provide detailed information about every aspect of life, but I have no idea how much info you've already posted about yourself on this site. So I'm not sure such a "test" would be worth the effort.

Suggestion: go to the site I linked to (Astrodienst), type in your birth time and place, and go over the personal chart, analysis and interpretations for yourself. THat should take you about 15-20 minutes, and you'll then have an answer to your own question (or at least, a very good start towards finding that answer)

Other people can't possibly know you or your personal life circumstances half as well as you do yourself. So why give undue power and authority to other people's perceptions/opinions about you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Why is it that most people know their birth time that accurately? The time of my birth has remained a bit uncertain, being only known in an approximate way. (could have been either before or after midnight, and no one knows for sure)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM

LH have you checked with your mother?   Having been quite present and very involved at the time, I do remember my own kid's exact birthtimes very well (I made it a point to look at the clock!)

My own mother remembered mine as well, although not all my siblings are as fortunate. Natal charts are often drawn up without the exact birth time (I think 12 noon is most often used as a last resort). Such reports still provide information that's useful in a general sense, but accuracy is definitely compromised without the exact time of birth.

Also, I'm still thinking about Bill's question about using the moment of conception rather than the moment of birth (first breath) to calculate a natal chart. First, it seems to me that until the first breath is inhaled and exhaled, the baby has yet to "make it's personal mark" on the universe (ie interact with the physical universe as a viable, independant and unique human being.

And second, even if the exact time of conception could be determined (not too likely outside a laboratory), how would it work for twins, then? Would the moment of conception be used, or the moment the zygote divided into two (in the case of identical twins), or possible two separate moments of conception (as in the case of fraternal twins)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

No one can, with certainty, say that astrology is either true or false.
Since it can't be proven either way, all we have is opinion, and my opinion is as good as yours. My opinion is; I don't know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Just submitted my details at astrodienst who assure me my town of birth does not exist.Ah well


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

LOL! That's very astute of you, kendall. Much wiser than airing blind, unsubstantiated opinions, comfortable long-held prejudices, or other people's second-hand anecdotes as "proof".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:29 AM

Purple Foxx, the town may be so small it's not listed at that site. If you do honestly want the info, you could calculate and enter the latitude/longitude of your birthplace instead. Or just use a neighbouring city/town, the closest one possible, and know that the results will be slightly less accurate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:13 AM

Took your advice Daylia.
Some assertions broadly correct.
Some assertions completely wrong (both women currently in my home highly entertained to hear of my "Highly religious nature" for some insight into why this might be check out my postings to the ongoing thread on belief in god.)
All assertions (from Astrodienst)were couched in very elaborate conditioning clauses.
B.T.W. Would like to clarify that neither this nor any other posting from me is intended as an attack on you personally
I'm not really a grumpy old git I just write like one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

Man am I feeling nitpickly today!   :-) But I just wanted to ask TIA why she thinks the tenets of astrology are so "extraordinary" that they require "extraordinary proof". Is it "extraordinary" only because it cannot be explained, proven or disproven via scientific methods of
investigation (yet)?

From a historical perspective, it is not astrology that's "extraordinary", but modern science and technology!

Astrology has been around and evolving for thousands and thousands of years. To the best of my knowledge, every culture in history on this planet developed some form of astrology. It is hardly "extraordinary" in my view -- rather, astrology is a very common, everyday, well known, ever evolving and extensively practiced area of study, research and discovery.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

No attack percieved, PF! Glad you took the time to check it out for yourself. Did you use the latitude/longitude, or a neighbouring city?

I know what you mean by the "highly religious nature" bit though -- that came up in my twin's chart too, and it's not very accurate. Yet, anyway. Time will tell. Not many under-25's are "highly religious" these days.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:48 AM

Used neighbouring city (Only 20 miles difference.)
I'll be 44 next month!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

All assertions (from Astrodienst)were couched in very elaborate conditioning clauses.

Sorry bout all these posts, but I just reread your post and noticed this, Purple Foxx. I'd like to point out that human beings are very complex. Individual reactions/responses, even to identical conditions/stimuli (ie Mars conjunct the Sun in the 1st House, to use an astrological example), are as varied as human nature and the circumstances of life itself.

So for example, while Mars conjunct the Sun in the 1st House always implies an abundance of energy and passion, a fiery personality and a strong will, people will express these qualities in highly individual ways. One might become a star athlete, another the passionate outgoing "Don Juan" type, and yet another the most determined, flamboyant, accomplished and influential Buddhist monk imaginable.

Computers are wonderful as time-savers, but they only "see" as progammed. A computer does not take into account subtle nuance, and it cannot "read between the lines". It is not a psychologist or a counsellor. And that's why, for the sake of being as useful as possible to as many people as possible, the computer at Astrodienst is programmed to "couch it's assertions in very elaborate conditioning clauses". Humans are very elaborate creatures, the products of ongoing and extremely complex conditioning and circumstance.

Even so, I find the analyses and interpretations at Astrodienst very helpful and accurate, most days. But if I wanted the very best analysis of my natal chart possible (and I could afford it!) I'd take it to the very best HUMAN astrologer I could find.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM

WEll, a twenty-mile difference would put your Ascendant (and therefore all your house cusps) a couple degrees or so off, I think. So some of the interpretations are likely also a little "off". I'm no expert though -- Ivor probably knows more about this than I do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

"every culture in history on this planet developed some form of astrology"

Every culture THOUGHT the world was FLAT and at the center of the univers too... Every culture THOUGHT they were the only ones too...

Every culture treated women/children as property at some point.... Should we go back to that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

Every culture developed certain means and methods for making music, for acquiring, cooking and sharing food too. Should we give those up as well?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

"... until the first breath is inhaled and exhaled,..."

Isn't that just an off-the-cuff guess? It seems to me that answers like that are precisely how the entire 'theology' of belief systems, religious OR astrological, are developed. Someone confronts a puzzle in the schema and chews on it and comes up with a plausible, poetic, but non-testable reply.....and if they have any influence, or bother to weave it into the rest of the concepts cleverly enough, it eventually gains nodding credence by others.

The history of mankind is **FULL** of elaborate, competing systems for explaining and predicting how life works and the rules and formulas for dealing with it. Some of them directly contradict many of the others....some are just 'awkward' to correlate...(like competing versions of Christianity).

   When I hear that astrology is thousands of years old, and that I should not presume to judge anything that I "have not personally studied in detail", I shake my head in frustration at the presumption that I cannot see basic, fundamental flaws in those admonishments. That is, even **IF** astrology happened to BE accurate, it cannot be supported using the notion that "many clever people for years have worked it out and agree on the basics". Like Tarot, Ouija boards, Crystal Balls and various religions....you just believe and accept because you feel like it.
   If I began preaching and teaching that Irish Elves living in secret underground passages really controlled most of our lives, and got a BUNCH of followers and wrote some sacred texts with elaborate detail, based on personal visits from the Supreme Elf....you would use exactly the same arguments to explain why you shouldn't believe me that I employ to doubt and question other belief systems!

Explaining why you think certain metaphysical concepts are 'valid' to others implicitly suggests that others ought to believe them also. There's no way around it....if you go beyond saying it is 'just fun and an interesting game', you are telling me that I am either stubborn, lacking in understanding, brainwashed, or locked into some purely arbitrary competing notion of how things work.

In fact, I have studied the basics of "how stuff works, and how you can tell IF you are using the right methods" for almost 50 years...and under very close scrutiny by some pretty high-powered experts for about 12-14 of those years.
   That is why I almost NEVER say "you are 'wrong' in your conclusions", but merely say "you have claimed more than you can defend reasonably".
   I SEE why the history of the race is full of 'beliefs'...it is in our nature to want answers, and my attitude gives fewer 'secure' answers. It is in many ways easier to just pick a comfortable set of premises and navigate in a smaller pond with a clear formula, rather than be told "we can't really answer that kind of question, and maybe will never be able to!"

....*shrug*...it just doesn't bother me to 'not know' a lot of stuff.....there's SO very much that can be learned that I can't be sidetracked into a lot of areas that require 'belief' before 'proof'.......and I'm sorry to report that 'proof' is a hard, technical concept that is pretty inflexible, and is NOT some arbitrary set of guidelines that applies differently when someone doesn't like challenges to their favorite notions. It is so very important to be totally aware of the difference between 'valid' and 'true' and the implications of claims about either.


ah, well....there I go again...*smile*...............I suppose I did this once again mostly to help myself clarify my own position....in a forum like this, most will skim over it and either ignore or pick out some line to object to.

It ain't easy, folks, to wrestle with 5-6 lines of thought at once...and issues like this HAVE that many to consider!

no easy way to stop, either............so.................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM

I think of astrology as kind of a self-help version of stone soup.

Most everyone knows this story, in which someone, a person or group of people is/are seeking food and the person or people they are seeking food from endeavor to hid it. By pretending to make soup from a stone, the stranger or strangers manage to get the necessary ingredients for a feast that benefits everyone.

The astrologer(or, nowdays, the astrological program) takes birth information and creates a personal map of celestial bodies--a dynamic maps that reflects influences and effects--and then the subject correlates their life and experiences with the overarching chart to fill in the picture.

It can make it possible for a person to get a bit of distance from the elements in their life, and to get some insight into what's happening and where it's going.

You may say, who needs that phony construct stuff, when they can go into therapy?

The deal is that people, being what they are, often will keep things from their therapists for years--whereas they will spill their guts to someone named "Karma", who has a silk scarf wrapped around her head, at the drop of a hat.










There is an old idea that you can predict about 50% of what will happen based on what you know about what is going on--astrology is useful, at least for certain people, in organizing and assessing the 50% that we can figure out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

"Should we give those up as well?"

No... because those have been shown to work...   Unlike Divination, Dowsing, Sailing Off The Edge Of The World.... all of which fail any decent double-blind test at a rate that consigns them to the realm of random chance

You wanna throw dice to decide your action, go right ahead... Don't try to tell me that "The Force" is controlling those dice.... Cause I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything make me believe in one All Powerful Force, controlling every thing... There's no mystical energy field controls MY destiny... It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM

Yep, M.Ted....you said that well. That IS one of the few explanations/justifications I can see that make sense. If that were all that were claimed, I'd not fret....too much ;>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

Isn't that just an off-the-cuff guess?

Hmm=. It's more of a suggestion, Bill. And it's quite testable.

A baby's first breath is the first time a viable (ie living and capable of sustaining that life independantly) and unique human being personally exchanges very physical, observable and testable elements (ie air) with the physical universe.

The proverbial "Breath of Life" is (obviously) just that, in other words. Unless you can think of a time prior to the first breath where a human being directly exchanges (testable) physical matter with the (testable) physical universe. I haven't, as yet!

So, really it's no wonder that traditionally, physical human life is said to begin with the first breath (and not, say, after the cutting of the umbilical cord or at the moment of conception as you suggested). Guess I'll find something else to wonder about!

That is, even **IF** astrology happened to BE accurate, it cannot be supported using the notion that "many clever people for years have worked it out and agree on the basics". Like Tarot, Ouija boards, Crystal Balls and various religions....you just believe and accept because you feel like it.

I don't "believe" a thing about astrology, Bill. I know (not believe, but know) what I do to date through direct first hand personal observation and experience. There's a big difference. Some people use astrology, Tarot, Ouija boards, hypnosis, meditation, prayer etc because --- guess what!! --- they've found these things really do work for them and they enjoy it. I see no problem with this. What does it matter if science can not or will not explain these things? Notta --- except to a scientist on a bad hair day, I suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

"they've found these things really do work for them"

No... they've deluded themselves into THINKING that they work.... Cause all that fullblop fails all the double blind tests.... It only works as often as random chance allowes it to work... Science HAS explained it... The problem is you refuse to see the explination....

again... refusal/inability to see something despite evidence is the 'classic' definition of deluded....

From dictionary.com

de·lu·sion Pronunciation Key (d-lzhn)
n.

   1.
         1. The act or process of deluding.
         2. The state of being deluded.
   2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
   3. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Note #3....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

There's no mystical energy field controls MY destiny.

Don't think so? Look in the mirror, Clinton    :-D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

Just did.... no mystical energy field... just light reflecting off a couple of different surfaces before reaching my optic nerve....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM

Just some random musing on the first moment of life.

The whole concept of 'life' is simply a human construct to distinguish one state from another (death).

That a baby doesn't have life until it's first breath because it hasn't exchanged physical matter with the physical universe is not really true. In the womb the baby is sustained with physical matter from it's mother who is of the physical universe.

Life can be considered as a continuum in that every cell in the living body is living. A new entity is created when two living cells fuse to form a new living cell which in turn......ad infinitum. I suppose if one wants to establish the exact moment of the creation of the new entity it would have to be at the moment of cellular fusion and the exchange of genetic material.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

That's true, bobad. A baby is very much alive before it is born. Hmm.

Perhaps the first breath was said to mark the beginning of life for a much simpler reason. Childbirth was a much riskier experience for both mother and baby, before recent times. After a baby is born, until it breathes on it's own it's life remains uncertain. And unless it breathes, it dies. So the first breath proves that the baby is indeed viable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Well, of course I've checked with my MOTHER about my time of birth, daylia, for flip's sake! Who else would I have gotten that information from? Nobody else has a clue about it, I can assure you, because she was the only one present in the room at the time, and for awhile afterward.

This is complicated somewhat by the fact that I have never known my mother to tell any story about anything without significant and quite exaggerated distortion of the facts... (It's not that she deliberately lies, she just has a tendency to unconsciously embellish things, which makes for a better story. If she says that 500 people died in a train wreck that destroyed 50 rail cars, you will presently find out it was closer to 15 people and 5 rail cars.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM

For those with great faith in the acuity of science, a bit of food for thought here Parapyschology research more scientific than hard science research--

It is an article about a study done by parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake, who, possibly fed up with the scorn of scientists about the legitimacy of his, reviewed hundreds of published papers and interviewed a large number of researchers in a variety of fields to determine the extent to which the "Gold Standard" of double blind testing was used in "Hard science"--

He found that, while it is used more that 80% of the time in parapsychological research, he found that it is only ocassionally used in medical and psychological sciences, and nearly never in biological and physical sciences--


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

"Cause I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff..." - Clinton Hammond


AHA!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it! You're finally admitted it, Clinton, you're a goddamned alien. Probably cold-blooded too. Maybe even green-blooded. This explains your total lack of human empathy and your ruthless, arrogant disregard for people.

Well, the cat is out of the bag now, buster. I have informed the authorities. You will shortly find unsympathetic men in black suits at your door, and will get to spend the next few months being subjected to vivisection and genetic testing and being spun around in giant centrifuges to see if it gives you motion sickness and other delightful stuff like that.

They'll probably try irradiating you too and see if you can take 80,000 rads. They do stuff like that with captured aliens.

If you've got any gigs next month, I'd suggest cancelling them now, cos you ain't gonna be there, sucker.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

It's a quote from Star Wars, you heathen


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

How's this for a blind test:

Went to the Astrodienst site and got my "real" profile. Then did three others with a) false birthdate, b) false birthplace c) false gender.

I am posting all four on the bulletin board above the coffee machine, and will ask all who work here (who know me quite well) to vote for which is the "real" description of me.

I will undoubtedly learn something, but in the spirit of LH's earlier post regarding beating people over the head, I will keep it to myself.

But, to believers and non-believers alike: try a similar test, and perhaps you will learn something as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM

Sure, sure...try and wiggle out of it. I didn't see any quote marks around it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

Wiggle out of what?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM

That is a cool idea, TIA. I'm kind of curious to see what results you get. What would be even cooler would be for someone else to generate several such charts for you (only one of them being based on your real birth date, etc)...then have you read them all and decide which one is most like you...then see how it came out.

And then do that with several other people.

Sort of a double-double-blind test.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

I smell and 8th grade science fair project!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll be listed in the references of course LH.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:24 PM

TIA, no one is in a better position to judge those results than yourself. Other people can't possibly know you or your life circumstances half as well as you do. So I ask again, why give unmerited power and authority to someone else's opinions/perceptions about you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM

Not giving them any power over me whatsoever. I will still be who I am. What I am giving them power over is Astrodienst. Their responses will be a strong indicator (for me of course) of the accuracy of the "real" profile. All of the profiles make some pretty specific statements about my modus operandi and outlook that people who have worked closely with me for 15 years ought to be able to spot if.

The main reason I am having others judge the profiles was stated best by Richard Feynman: "the easiest person to fool is yourself", and from my life history and prior circumstances, I know that I am quite capable of fooling myself.


Besides, anything else would be a little bit like playing the shell game with myself. Not much fun or challenge if you already know which cup the pea is under.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM

The easiest person to fool is definitely oneself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM

interesting article, M. Ted...and your summation of it is clear. It is, however, reporting 'about' presumed statistics gathered by Sheldrake, who is also reported thusly:
"Rupert Sheldrake is far from being a reliable source, and on the basis of his previous escapades, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Ford Explorer. He may have misrepresented the hard sciences' stand on experimenter blinding, and his report may be unbalanced or exaggerated, especially in light of the low number of parapsychology studies represented in his survey."

Now, he may be absolutely right on in the survey he reports, but not all 'standard' scientific tests require "blind" comparisions....and of course, we hear nothing about the results of 'blind' testing in the 'standard' sciences compared to parapsyhchology.

I, myself, was once part of a study of drugs in which there were 3 control groups, one of which was given a placebo, and the others given different strengths of the actual drug...and not even the techs doing the test knew who got what...... In that case, 'blinds' were required, in other types of experiments they are not. It all depends on what you need to prove, test or discover....then the NATURE of the results becomes important...are you wanting statistics, or 'happenings'? (i.e....if all the participants in group 3 in my study died, conclusions could be drawn!...If 52% reported they 'felt better', MUCH different conclusions are appropriate.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*daylia*...."
I don't "believe" a thing about astrology, Bill. I know (not believe, but know) what I do to date through direct first hand personal observation and experience."

I never doubt that a person HAD the experiences they report, but I always 'take with a grain of salt' (that one the size of the Ford *grin*) most claims about the source and implications and conclusions to be drawn. When you say you "know" in this context, it is clear that you are using the word in a much looser way than I would like to see. In the scientific method, it is a pretty dicey term, reserved for times when absolute certainty needs to be talked about.

    Even in general discourse, one needs to be wary of the context. There is a BIG difference between saying "I know that tossing a lighted match in gasoline is likely to cause a big flare." and telling me "I know I saw the ghost of my grandfather" or "I know that the analysis of my astrological charts have been accurate."

Even the match/gasoline statement is not as precise as "I know that 2+2=4" because that is true by definition, and 1 time in a million that match may not cause a BOOM....but it is still pretty reliable, and we can easily agree to say "I know it is dangerous" because we agree on the basic rules in that case.

When we DO use words differently, then the logical problem of 'equivocation' can rear its head as people continue a debate, never stopping to note that one definition is more rigid than another.


"Is all this nitpicking necessary", she asks? *grin*...."well", says the stodgy philosopher, "only if you want the answers to be useful."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:34 PM

Daylia,

Sorry for the delay - today is one of my two days off, and I've been out hunting LPs.

I first thought of doing this as a pm, then thought I'd be a bit braver than that.

The alternative to "influence" is that at any moment, the universe has a pattern, existing in every particle of it (vaguely like my own 'pattern' being identifiable in every cell of my body, leg and liver and ear alike, tho' legs, livers and ears don't look like each other). The horoscope was simply discovered to be a way of reading off the pattern. So, correspondences between planetary events, and those here, are about synchronicity (the "same" thing going on in different places), rather than influence.

As I said before, prediction in the precise, scientific sense, is not sought or possible a lot because we do have free will. Astrology speaks more of tendencies (bit like scientists can't predict the exact time of climate collapse - and don't even agree th't that is inevitable - scientists, mark you).

Do I lack free will because I can't announce I'm going to jump off a cliff and fly and that be true?

No, it's just that actual constraints have to be taken into account. One's horoscope shows one's personal constraints and tendencies, the hand one has been dealt (in my earlier analogy).

So it's tendencies, not predictions, tho' it is these tendencies, not those. Each of us has a different bunch of talents, different temperaments. Did we choose our temperaments? Our talents?

Incidentally, when the object of a study is a person or people (psychology, astrology, anthropology, sociology etc.), it is difficult/impossible for the study to be truly scientific. That is, if for no other reason, because the subject and object of the study are, uniquely, of the same species (like trying to see your mind with your eyes), and axes are going to be ground, like it or not.

Dahlia, I'll leave my response to your kind request there for the moment. I'll be happy to share more, on piste or off, as we decide.

Most of the other postings have ignored one part or another of the earlier posts of us astronauts (hey, that could fly.) And there aint a durn thing we can do about (cept say it aint worth going on. You have free will, so it's your choice.)

Just a small point. Clinton, very feisty in asking others to provide answers and evidence (as I agree is oft valuable), may I prod you just once more to enlarge on your statement that you know enough about astro. to know it's bullshit. Don't be shy. We're not enemies, are we? What have you got? Best wishes

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

I think you are absolutely right, autolycus. It's sychronicity of the whole system, not the detection of an influence or causation by various heavenly bodies. Any method of divination works for that very reason, provided the person doing it is sensitive enough to tune in. The degree of their sensitivity is the key to a good reading...NOT the method they use.

I've seen marvelously accurate readings done with tea leaves, for instance. One does not need astrology to do readings at all, but if one likes it, it's probably as good a method of divination as any.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

The questioning of Sheldrake's credibility is a bit of hyperbole--he is actually a fairly reputable biologist, who advocates that science is a method, not a position-

He also contends that a lot of what passes for science is merely habit, and his critical point is that scientists tend to think that double blinds are only needed when there are human subjects involved--to cancel out their bias, and are completely oblivious to the idea that experimenter bias has a great effect on the outcome of research.

This is not a new idea, not even a controversial idea--most scientists generally forgo acceptance of what seem to be new discoveries until they have been independently verified many times.

The trick is, they recognize experimenter bias can be a significant in the work of others, but not in their own work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:09 PM

Just to add a little to what BillD has to say on the subject of double blind studies. This methodology is used primarily to test the efficacy of therapies, drugs, treatments etc. ie. does the drug, therapy or treatment have an effect that is SIGNIFICANTLY different from that of a placebo, and by SIGNIFICANTLY I mean by using accepted statistical analysis to measure significance.

Another way to test efficacy is by evaluating the effect something may have by measurment. For example take a blood anti-coagulant, it's efficacy is easily measured by testing it's effect on the amount of time it takes to clot a subject's plasma in a laboratory procedure.

That would be a pretty straightforward way to say that something does what it claims to do. On the other hand if one wants to determine whether this effect has an effect on mortality or morbidity a double blind study would be used to answer that question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:21 PM

Thursday March 2

Mar. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
Thought for the Day: Mercury is always an elusive planet to pinpoint visually, but its astrological influence is unmistakable. Today it comes to a full stop in Pisces and begins its once-in-four-months retrograde cycle until the 25th. Be as adaptable as you can.


Wednesday March 1

Mar. 1, 2006. 01:00 AM
Thought for the Day: It's all excitement and high energy. The moon moves into feisty Aries, Uranus is positively electric and Mercury comes to a standstill as it squares off with intense Pluto. This month is off to a flying start.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:24 PM

"Uranus is positively electric"

No comment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM

There's likely a good joke about AC/DC in there somewhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:36 PM

"Be as adaptable as you can."

working on it....even when Mercury is zipping in his usual manner and not standing still.


"...they recognize experimenter bias can be a significant in the work of others, but not in their own work."

yep...a common error...but not a universal one. It is not about whether experts sometimes are careless; it is about what good methodology is, whether followed carefully or not. If a basically flawed method is scrupulously adhered to, ALL its results are suspect. (NOT proven wrong...just not proven right)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

The main reason I am having others judge the profiles was stated best by Richard Feynman: "the easiest person to fool is yourself", and from my life history and prior circumstances, I know that I am quite capable of fooling myself.

Likewise, TIA. Everyone's great at fooling themselves! And yes, there's been a few times when other people's observations and opinions about me and/or my personal life have proven helpful ie during a particularly difficult or crisis situation, when it's hardest to stay objective and keep a level head.

But honestly, other people's opinions usually turn out to be a distraction at best, harmful and misleading at worst. A few decades of trial and error have shown that life is much easier when I avoid seeking out other people's opinions and "advice" (??) about my own personal affairs as much as possible.

I shudder to think that I'd allow anyone else to direct, least of all dictate my choices or decisions or judgements re websites, or personal astrological reports, or posting on Mudcat, or playing the piano, or anything else I might be interested in pursuing! But then again, I do make it a point to trust nothing but personal hands-on observation and experience when investigating subjects like astrology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

Bill, I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know. Maybe you don't even think that anything is really knowable the way I go about knowing. This, however, does not mean that I don't know what I do know or that you don't know what you do know. All it means is I know that I know things that you don't know. And you know that you know things that I don't know, because we've chosen different paths in life.

ANd y'know what? Whooooopty-doopty! C'est la vie! I like you anyway. I know that. YOu may not think that I really know this, but I do. I can't prove scientifically that I know that I like you, or even that I do like you. But I still do know it anyway. And I do still like you.

Y'know?    :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 PM

To know that you know that I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know makes me know that you don't even think that anything is really knowable the way I go about knowing that you know. This, however, does not mean that I don't know what I do know or that you don't know what you do know. All it means is I know that I know things that you don't know that I know I know. And you know that you know things that I don't know that you know I know, because......because.......awww, screw it!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:42 PM

I view astrology as a relatively harmless hobby.

I very much doubt the movements of some very distant lights in the sky have a significant effect on individual futures as long as little things like free will and chance are around.

And if you think poring over star charts and silly arcane symbols will bring you to to some sort of higher consciousness, you can probably get the same result by staring long enough at a bowl of Alphabits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:54 PM

Hunting LP's instead of grinding axes here on the Cat? Good for you!
Hope you enjoyed a successful blast from the past.

"The alternative to "influence" is that at any moment, the universe has a pattern, existing in every particle of it (vaguely like my own 'pattern' being identifiable in every cell of my body, leg and liver and ear alike, tho' legs, livers and ears don't look like each other). The horoscope was simply discovered to be a way of reading off the pattern. So, correspondences between planetary events, and those here, are about synchronicity (the "same" thing going on in different places), rather than influence.

As I said before, prediction in the precise, scientific sense, is not sought or possible a lot because we do have free will. Astrology speaks more of tendencies (bit like scientists can't predict the exact time of climate collapse - and don't even agree th't that is inevitable - scientists, mark you)."

Yup! Thanks for posting these intriguing ideas re synchronicity, Ivor. Never considered the astrological "map" quite this way before. Rather like a holograph ... hmmmm ... Little Hawk probably has some interesting comments about this. Thanks again!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM

You are probably right, Daylis. Gravity is everywhere all at once. The star-croosed lovers in Romeo and Juliet, the desire of people to leave the 'surly bonds of Earth'--there is stuff going on we don't at all understand. If astrology helps you make sense of it all, then good for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM

Sheesh LH I just saw your post(s). And I knew that you'd have something interesting to say about Ivor's post, even before I saw your post! Now, I know that I knew this before I saw your post, but I can't prove it scientifically for Bill or anybody. That, however, doesn't change what happened or the fact that I knew. Or that I know that I knew even though this is unknowable for anyone else but me.

K. I think I've known enough for one day. Nitey nite all!




hey ....maybe I'll get to dream about mars conjuncting uranus ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM

"Bill, I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know."

nawwwwww...you don't know that! You BELIEVE that....*big grin*

well, anyhoo, it's good to .....ummmmmmm....'know' that you like me, in spite of my pedantic nit-picking. You are not shy about speaking your mind, and you always keep a sense of humor about it all. Valuble traits! No one 'need' convince anyone else of their point of view, just 'maybe' we will all think and understand a bit more from all this debate....

(well...except for CH...*grin*)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM

Not to worry Daylia. I'm not seeking anyone's opinion or influence on me or my behaviour or judgements. Simply have asked them which of the Astrodienst profiles best fits me. Their judgements will reflect far more upon astrology than they will upon me. I don't need astrology to tell me that I am actually quite difficult to influence (my spouse tells me this often and in many planetary alignments).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:48 PM

Peace, I know I'm supposed to be asleep but I forgot to say thanks so here I am again. Those "Thoughts for the Day" are so very timely! Believe it or not as you choose of course, but I was wondering if Mercury had gone into retrograde earlier this evening, while I was at work. Little semi-trivial frustrating arrrgghhh stuff has been happening all day -- miscommunication, delays, devices not functioning no apparent reason -- and the Moon just entered Aries, too.   
Well!   Take it back, I say!      all this grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I've been feeling ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM

Yeah. Every time L'i gets that hind leg going and scratches his left ear really fast things tend to get a little weird for a bit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM

Since some have questioned TIAs method of doing things, how about I do it the other way around?

Could someone volunteer to make up 4 or more charts and post them here. One for me, and some with other random details. make one of them close to but not identical to mine, just for fun and the others very different details. I will judge which best fits me.

My details Born: 09/10/1972 at about 9am in Felling, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, England (not sure what level of detail they will accept for place of birth).

If you are the kind volunteer, make sure you keep a note of which horoscope is which.

You might need to hide details of which sun sign comes up, as I obviously will know this, but I don't know any other details.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 08:32 AM

TIA, thanks for clarifying your purpose and method so patiently. I was seeing you and your idea from the only vantage point I really have, and that's my own. I was concerned about giving undue power and authority to other people's opinions/perceptions, because that particular issue brings up unpleasant "old stuff" for me. However, this may or may not have anything to do with your typical mode of operation, and I can see that you are confident it does not. So, I'll go with it!

And I think your results will be interesting, bearing in mind the following factors affecting validity. Your co-workers are just as much a measure of these 'variables' as they are of the accuracy of the Astrodienst reports:

1. The extent and quality of their knowledge and personal perceptions of you (which is sure to be colored by their own personal vantage point and "issues", just as mine was earlier)

2. The co-worker's vocabulary (those reports ARE couched rather elaborately, as PF pointed out)

3. The amount and quality time and effort they put into studying the reports formulating an answer for you, and

4. Their personal opinions/feelings about astrology in general.


Bagpuss, I'll gladly do that for you. Can't do it immediately though -- stay posted! I'll be back ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

K Bagpuss, here's your 1st choice. (I'm only posting the 1st 2 sections of each report, as they are quite loooooooooong and involved ...)

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Cancer

You were born with the Sun in XXXX and the Moon in Cancer. Your personality comes under the rulership of the Moon which indicates one who is attached to the comforts of his home life. You are friendly in manner and gesture. You are highly sensitive to nature and your surroundings. You should be careful not to fall under the influence of other people so readily.

You have the capacity to escape the confines of self and empathize fully with the feelings of others. The Moon in cancer always creates a personality overflowing with sensitivity and emotions. In order to feel secure it is very important that you have your family and social affairs completely settled and running smoothly.

Coming under the influence of the Sun in XXXXX, your core is intellectual, seemingly in opposition to your personality. Internally you are less emotional than appears by the role you have assumed in society. You need to have more determination and self-reliance in whatever you do.

The key to a better integration of your personality is to become more detached and independent of your family and home affairs and to acquire a more solid psychological focal point, so that you follow your goals with more determination.

Ascendant in Leo, Sun in the Eleventh House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Leo was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler the Sun is located in the eleventh house.

People with Leo in the Ascendant seem to possess a flair for the life of nobility and regality. Your life will be in many ways influenced by decisions you make that have been motivated by your pride, desire for power, for authority, and your need to convince others of your courage.

In life you will act with a rather frank, generous, and amiable disposition. The course of events in your life will unfold themselves swiftly, and a life full of chance and circumstances will be the outcome of your desire to rule, to organize, to hold the keys of authority. You should be aware that as a result of overly strong impulses there is the danger of failures and upsets in life. You will be generally regarded as an amiable, sincere and generous person who, however, has much pride and sensitivity. Egocentricity is one of the prices of being born with the Ascendant sign of Leo. Another aspect of this zodiacal sign is that your personality becomes excessively charged with passion and sexual desire. On the other hand, these zodiacal signs grant in life a large dose of vitality as well as a fine physical shape and a strong, healthy constitution.

Willpower is a characteristic of your personality. You seek opportunities and when you find them you go to it, using both your mind and your emotions to strive for success with zeal and determination. You are very self-assured and you implement ideas with a self- assurance that lets nothing get in your way of success.

It would be beneficial to you, however, if you were not so candid and frank and if you did not expect others to act and feel as you do.

Leo will grant you very sincere and affectionate relationships in which you desire to bring happiness and an overall feeling of charitable spirit and warmth to your loved one. In your sexual relationships you appear as happy, strong, playful and even a little innocent.

You will always act better as a leader than a subordinate.

This position denotes that friendships will have a direct bearing on all your important events. The position is rather favorable. You should obtain the sympathy and approval of superiors and persons of authority, or any of those who in some degree are more powerful than you are in your professional circle. Whatever profession you may be engaged in, you will rise due to your own inborn traits. You are very sociable, ambitious respectful, and attracted to conventional fashions and customs.

**********************************************************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:50 AM

Here's the 2nd:

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Scorpio

These astrological positions indicate a clever and shrewd personality. You tend to be aggressive and are often downright blasphemous. When crossed you wreak revenge in full measure. You relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories. These shows of your achievement, however, are to your detriment because they earn you the ill will of others. You lean toward the darker sides of life, and your imagination can be morbid. You are fascinated by the mysterious, malignant forces in the universe. A nocturnal individual, your thoughts often turn to death, finalities, and the mysteries of life after death.

The key to a more harmonious self lies in developing optimism and recognizing the good that exists in the world.


Ascendant in Sagittarius, Jupiter in the First House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Sagittarius was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Jupiter is located in the first house.

Sagittarius rising denotes lives which are very dualistic; situations come and go as if divided into two sides - success and failure.

If you are able to raise the interests of your mind from common and trivial things to more profound subjects, your intellect will become very philosophical and attracted by law and peace, and it will be more intuitive than rational. In any case your life will be colored by impulsive and rather stubborn tendencies on your part, creating some inclination to go to extremes,

During the course of your existence you must try to develop intuition and human understanding so that you may be in a position to assist other people with your advice.

Sagittarius gives you a rather strong love of nature and makes you somewhat extroverted, demonstrative and passionate, falling in love frequently and without reservations. You are an intellectual, an intelligent person who has been fortunate enough to be granted also a good development of the emotional functions.

Your romantic life will be intense and varied. Your object of love may find you difficult to understand. In one aspect you will appear as passionate and energetic but because of the mutability of the sign you will also have an opposite tendency that will lead you away from involvement in the love affair and the latter impulse will be caused by a more inner trait, which is personal freedom.

Generally speaking, the sign of Sagittarius will incline you to exist in environments in which your physical body, emotions and thoughts are allowed total freedom for development. On a higher intellectual level you may find yourself inclined to dwell in the deep complexities of philosophy, metaphysics, religion and law. You are versatile enough to study more than one discipline simultaneously not forgetting to keep your body in physical movement, since you require both intellectual and physical exercise.

The general meaning of this position is that any success in life will be achieved through personal effort and merit. There is also a tendency for dignity and respectability caused by your strength of temperament.

You give an impression of spontaneity, frankness, and good disposition. Your temperament is innately honest, truthful, kind and courageous.

**********************************************************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:53 AM

Here's the 3rd:

Sun in XXXXX, Moon in Aquarius

This astrological combination lends you organizational ability and the likelihood of success in large undertakings that involve the public. You are highly independent in your thinking and progressive in your ideas. Perceptive and aware, you arrive at much of what you know through intuition. You always remain somewhat detached from others, but you are a keen observer of human nature.

You could gain financially from some official position in which you deal with very large groups of people.


Ascendant in Capricorn, Saturn in the Twelfth House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Capricorn was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Saturn is located in the twelfth house.

The sign of Capricorn denotes an existence in which temperament is very important. You will give an image of ambition, persistence, will power, consistency and perseverance. You were born with the tendencies to seek material, social, and, perhaps, even political power.

Capricorn tends to a challenging life which forces you to exert all your resources in order to triumph. Because of your tact and prudence, you will be favored with the good will of important people.

Your mind is egocentric, rational and you have a natural tendency toward scepticism. Able to work hard, you will bear obstacles and frustrations with patience.

You will proceed with prudence in your love life and in all other activities. You will seriously consider all of the ramifications of a relationship, especially the aspects of your independence, and you will not commit yourself to a partner until you are sure of your choice. After that however there is a tendency to conduct a peaceful and quiet life.

You are very economical in your daily activities, and if you do not exert some control over this trait, it could appear as rather mean.

You are best placed in governmental, municipal, political, or large business organizations where hierarchy is very exactly defined. The key word for your professional orientation is responsibility.

This position indicates that your life is conducted in darkness and you are inclined to plan in the shelter of loneliness. You don't mind seclusion as long as you can think and express yourself freely.

You may be able to amass considerable amounts of money in a manner which is not acceptable to your acquaintances

************************************************************************


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

And here's the 4th choice for Bagpuss! Will the REAL Bagpuss please stand up????

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Scorpio

These astrological positions indicate a clever and shrewd personality. You tend to be aggressive and are often downright blasphemous. When crossed you wreak revenge in full measure. You relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories. These shows of your achievement, however, are to your detriment because they earn you the ill will of others. You lean toward the darker sides of life, and your imagination can be morbid. You are fascinated by the mysterious, malignant forces in the universe. A nocturnal individual, your thoughts often turn to death, finalities, and the mysteries of life after death.

The key to a more harmonious self lies in developing optimism and recognizing the good that exists in the world.

Ascendant in Scorpio, Mars in the Eleventh House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Scorpio was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Mars is located in the eleventh house.

Your life will be marked by your shrewd, secretive, obstinate, clever, and reserved disposition. You remain an enigma: with these traits, your life events could be either very tragic or very fortunate. To which category of Scorpio do you belong? There are two types, the extremely emotional, attracted by those pathological aspects of biological relationship, or the highly mystical, concerned with spirituality.

You are a person of extremes, very sensitive and desirous of attachment. There is some attraction to the occult or to psychic phenomena. You are active in the sense that there is a psychological struggle going on inside you between the positive and negative poles-those of affirming and satisfying or rejecting and repressing. You are very intense in your feelings and remain passionately attached to the person you love. Similarly, when you dislike someone you are very fixed in that feeling. However, there is room for optimism in that: whatever type of Scorpio you may happen to be, there exists a desire deep in your inner self for psychic regeneration.

At some point in your life, after the occurrence of a major dramatic event that will affect you deeply, the goal and entire expression of your ego may alter entirely. The intensity and profundity of your passion, however, will always be constant. You have a tendency to go into the shadows and secretly plan the course of action you will take, reluctant to let others know the exact nature of your mood or feelings. In your sexual affairs you are full of passion and strong attachment.

Exert more control over your passions; don't be so resentful of others. Use your strong will and character for favorable and beneficial things.

You have a strong inclination to be involved in medicine, perhaps even surgery. You are attracted by research and investigation in general.

This house signifies the most intimate and subtle aspirations of the native and is basically a house of friendships and acquaintances. People with their rulers here are individuals who, for better or worse, rise in life, supporting themselves by the assistance of friends. In any event, Mars is not an influence indicative of a person who has many friends.

It is likely that you are going to be struggling in life for the realization of your most intimate wishes. Many of these have to do with securing a substantial livelihood. If you can exert a good degree of control over your passions, you may fully succeed.

***********************************************************************

Now, will the real Bagpuss please stand up??   :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM

Thank you daylia. I shall have a thorough read and get back to you.

Bagpuss

PS. Why was the final one in bold? I hope it was just an error and not some attempt to unconsciously affect my choice.... ;-)

[fixed missing /b-mudelf]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:53 PM

Thanks, mudelf, for fixing that tag. Bagpuss please be assured that mistake wasn't intentional - I was rushed this morning and didn't preview those posts. Sorry, and enjoy your 'research'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM

PS   darn I wish I'd bolded ALL the headings for the second half of those reports (where it says Ascendant in XX, PlanetWhatever in XX) Please know that was just an oversight too, and not intended as any kind of "clue".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

Okey Dokey.

Well I can honestly say that none of the profiles sounded particularly like me. None of them hit on any of what I consider to be key aspects of my personality. Some had some minor bits that could describe me, but equally some contained bits that were really unlike me. I won't bother mentioning bits that were neither like nor unlike me.

Profile 1: 3/10
The bits that fitted were about being friendly and sensitive and liking my comforts and empathising with others. Also the bit about me having an intellectual core. The bits about desire to rule, organise and hold keys to authority are nothing like me, ditto for the willpower bit.

Profile 2: 2/10
First section extemely unlike me, except perhaps the morbid imagination bit. Inclination to extremes, again unlike me. Love of nature is correct, but not extroverted, demonstrative etc.

Profile 3: 4/10
Organizational ability, definitely not. The only bit in the first section that rang true was keen observer of human nature (I studied psychology). Abition, persistence, willpower etc - totally wrong. Tendency towards scepticism, correct. Prudence in love life section fairly accurate, same with being economical in daily activities.

Profile 4: 3/10
First section same as for 2, so again, couldn't be more unlike me. Second section. Second section - Not an extremes sort of person, and not attracted to the occult or psychic phemomena particularly. Passionately attached to those I love, but conversely, NOT fixed in dislikes. Inclination towards medicine is correct, but definitely not surgery. Definitely attracted by research and investigation.

So I didn't feel any of them fitted me like a glove, but if forced to choose, number 3 was least unlike me.

Bring on the result...

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 08:25 PM

Bagpuss, the birth data you gave above generated profile #4.

For #2, I made a minor adjustment to your data (date/time of birth became 10/10/1972 at 12 noon)

#1 is an old profile from my file (I chose the male closest to your age).

And #3 is a hypothetical person born Jan 1 1960 at 12 noon in Los Angeles California.


*egads*   


how morbidly disillusioning


;-)

But then again, I felt the same way you describe about the first natal chart I had drawn up. I'd used the "around 8am" birthtime given by my mother -- just as you gave the "around 9 am" time above. Some parts fit almost like a glove, others seemed to be describing someone else entirely. But a few years later I found my exact birthtime, and that 35 minute difference generated quite a different chart - one that did seem to be describing me reasonably well, most of the time.

And the 8 years elapsed between the two charts seemed to make a difference too. Certain descriptions I'd felt strongly were nothing like me back then made a lot more sense in hindsight. Of course! People change over the years, express different parts of their nature at different times in their lives; a natal chart, being a 'snapshot' of the heavens at the (hopefully exact) moment of birth, does not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

But surely an hour either way would not change the first part of the chart, the the sun in Libra, Moon in Scorpio bit, would it? It didn't change that part for the one you altered slightly from my details. This was the part which was so completely unlike me. And I find it very unlikely that in the future I am going to become a person who is aggressive, blasphemous, vengeful and morbidly obsessed with death (I paraphrase).

So I think you might have to accept that my personality does not conform to that which is predicted by astrology.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 10:43 AM

One of the flaws of astrology is that the zodiac signs and planet characteristics (female, male, warlike, peaceful, etc.) are completely arbitrary to the culture that invented them. In one culture a planet represents war, in another culture THE SAME planet represents peace. So, which zodiac or astrological belief is right.... the Mayan, the Chaldean, the different American Indian tribes who had differing beliefs about the stars, the Chinese, the many tribes and cultures that have come and gone over history that we don't even know about? Look back at the revival in Britain after World War I of the Chaldean zodiac and how it is now what we call "astrology".   The fact is, people project meaning onto symbols. Humans have a great capacity to imagine and find patterns to fit what they imagine.
Astrology is best understood by learning how it began.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

The vital thing as far as I'm concerned in any system of divination is the individual doing it, not the method they use. They either have the ability to relax and put personality aside and tune in or they don't. I do not believe in the science of astrology particularly, but I do believe that some people can use it effectively as a tool to express their natural psychic abilities. The same thing can be done by reading a person's tea leaves or the lines on their palm...if you have the ability.

This is why astrological predictions from a computer or a newspaper column strike me as totally useless except for entertainment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:11 PM

Too wordy...

"One of the flaws of astrology is that (it's) completely arbitrary"

Says it all...

Or

"astrological predictions (are) totally useless except for entertainment"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:37 PM

Bagpuss, I gave those 4 reports no more than a quick glance before I posted them. Didn't read them through till last night in fact. I was surprised with the negativity of that kick-in-the-butt Sun/Moon description; almost regretted that I didn't PM the results instead of posting them here.   Who in their right mind would stand up here and declare "Oh yes folks, that sounds just exactly like me folks!!!"

It bugged me so much I snooped on you --- read through a few of your old posts here on Mudcat. And I must say, Bagpuss, I found nothing "downright blasphemous", absolutely no indication that you "relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories". I think if you did, it would be quite apparent here on the Cat!   Your posts give the impression of a respectful, well-spoken, well-mannered, good-hearted and knowledgable person - to me, anyway.

But surely an hour either way would not change the first part of the chart, the the sun in Libra, Moon in Scorpio bit, would it?

NO, it doesn't. That was the "clue" I knew I could not avoid when I posted the reports, so I just hoped it wouldn't occur to you.

You may be interested to know that the first section of my own report is the part I find least accurate as well. An Aries Sun implies aggression (which I'm not unless provoked beyond reason), and a Taurus Moon suggests a very "traditional", "conservative" person who's stuck in their ways and finds it difficult to change (.... uh ... NOT!!!)

But this is because while the computer instantly generates a very brief, general description of the person's sun and moon placements in the opening section, certain vitally important astrological "qualifiers" (ie house, aspect, dignity etc) are not addressed until subsequent sections of the report. And that's if they can be addressed at all, in those "short reports" offered free of charge (as a "first peek" for newbies) at Astrodienst. It's unfortunate, because these "qualifiers" are the very things HUMAN astrologers consider first, when analysing a chart. These variables make every natal chart as individual and unique as the people they attempt to describe.

THe second part of my report (re the Ascendant) is much more accurate. And it's very interesting, to me, that a career in medicine was mentioned in the second half of yours, Doctor.

(You are Dr. Bagpuss, right?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

" it's very interesting, to me, that a career in medicine was mentioned in the second half of yours"

You blather long enough, and something is BOUND to be close...

Again... no more than random chance....

Or as my grandfather was fond of saying, "The sun shines on every dogs ass sometimes...."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 01:15 PM

Alice, I am just as skeptical of articles by "skeptics" as I am of articles by "psychics".

Prejudice, bias, slant, and partial (if not total) ignorance of the subject at hand are so common in such articles, they are best taken with a grain ... better yet, a mountain .... of salt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."

- ALBERT EINSTEIN


"Synchronicity does not admit causality in the analogy between terrestrial events and astrological constellations ... What astrology can establish are the analogous events, but not that either series is the cause or the effect of the other. (For instance, the same constellation may at one time signify a catastrophe and at another time, in the same case, a cold in the head.) ... In any case, astrology occupies a unique and special position among the intuitive methods... I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological phase, or an analogous event, was accompanied by a transit (particularly when Saturn and Uranus were affected)."

- CARL G. JUNG (click here for more of Jung's views on astrology)

LH, Jung's observation re the effects of planetary transits on human psychological states and behavior (ie events) illustrate one of many differences between the subject of astrology and, say, palm-reading or using a pendulum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM

Those are interesting quotes, daylia. Einstein was always saying things that would bother the hell out of materialistic types if they knew he'd said it.

Well, I think the planets can reveal much, but not because they are the cause of events...because they are part of the one interconnected reality: like in a hologram. What is here is also there, showing itself in a different outer form.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM

Oops sorry -- that post didn't "take" for some odd reason.

LH, that's very true. And my last sentence should have read "...the relationship between planetary alignments and human psychological states and behaviour (ie events) ..."   and not   "... the effect of planetary alignments on human psychological states ..."

*sigh*    old mental habits can be real tough nuts to crack    :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:36 AM

Actually, no I am not a doctor. I just have an interest in health and illness. I have a psychology degree and most of my research work has been in health (mainly mental health) related fields. So yes, it did manage to get something right, but then so did the other three.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM

Well, Bagpuss, are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art (or as Einstien says, 'science') of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report, even knowing that it was generated with an inaccurate birthtime?

I'm not!

You considered only a fraction of the info in that short report. I posted only the first 2 of about 8 sections here, to save bandwidth. You could order your complete report, interpreted by the highly respected human astrologers at that site. Don't worry - it's only about 60 pages long. ;-)

I do happen to have your entire short report on file now, right here. You can click on any of your planets, houses, aspects, angles etc on your chart for a detailed description of each factor, and in so doing uncover some interesting food for thought about yourself and your life, PLUS get yourself an excellent introduction to the field of astrology, free of charge.

I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't resist going over your chart last night -- very interesting! I'm certainly no expert (astrology is just a hobby to me) but the first thing I noticed was WOW, in the sign of Libra, you have a stellium (three or more planets) - your Sun, Uranus, and Mercury in the 12th House, PLUS Pluto and Mars in the 11th. This combined influence (all in Libra, an Air sign governing the intellect and usually much concerned with working toward social 'balance', peace and fairness) is so strong it governs your whole chart.

A stellium usually indicates tremendous strength of character, great powers of focus and drive in the given area of life. Does this sound like you?

Your chart has an obvious "Bucket" configuration -- 9 planets filling one-half of the horoscope circle and the remaining planet (in your case, Saturn) on the opposite half, forming the 'handle' of the 'bucket'.

'Bucket' people are said to be driven toward their goals with much energy, and the Singleton planet (Saturn) can indicate the goal of direction that a Bucket type pursues. Saturn is a 'heavy' planet, traditionally considered a "malefic" (difficult influence). Saturn's placement is said to indicate the individual's karma, limitations, responsibilities, burdens. In your case it's in the 8th house. Saturn actually "rules" the 8th House - it's Scorpio's house (and your Moon is in Scorpio), the house of passion, death, 'rebirth' (ie total transformation).

To me, all this adds up to what you called a tendency to be morbid, toward pessimism and perhaps even depression, plus a strong interest in /association with death. Does this sound like you?

And here's two short excerpts from your "short report" to consider as well, if you like. I know I enjoyed considering them, after reading some of your old posts!

Mercury in the Twelfth House (Incidentally, I have this placement too, and I also have a degree in Psychology)

Mercury was in the twelfth house at the time of birth. Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding. It may be very desirable to reverse these tendencies and turn your mind's eye on your inner self. There are many good things about your mind; it is alert and subtle. It is very intellectual really, but you do have some talent for understanding the exotic. There is not much place in the world for your practical and efficient knowledge. This can lead you to anxiety, worry, self- depreciation, and an intense absence of self esteem. Feel more, think less, work harder."

Moon in the First House

The Moon is in the first house. This position indicates that you are strongly influenced by your feelings and moods.

Your awareness of yourself is influenced by your momentary feelings, and this perception is subject to rapid changes of mood and emotion. In time, you will learn to understand why you react as you do to various situations, and then you can begin to change your response patterns and take more control of your life.

Others sense your lack of emotional self-sufficiency and tend to get involved in your personal affairs, even if you try to prevent it. You express your sensitivity through an emotional need to nurture and be nurtured by others. While you would like to have guidance and supervision concerning your goals and objectives, it would be better to achieve your aims independently so that you will not feel obligated to others.

The advantage of this position lies in your ability to sense other people's needs and desires.

In fact, you have a calming effect on people who are under stress, and this makes you ideally suited for working with the public."

I'd vouch for that last claim, just from hobnobbing with you here on the Cat. Remember that thread about gay marriage? I do! Your calming, level-headed fair-mindedness was quite apparent as you took me on for days on end a couple summers ago!

daylia


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 08:47 AM

PS   Sorry that last post is so long. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything even if it appears otherwise, Bagpuss. You are most welcome to your own opinions and judgements - they has nothing to do with me, or even with astrology (I say this not out of disrespect but because you know so little about it).

I can and often do get carried away studying astrology though, for days on end even -- it's a fascinating and seemingly infinite source of information, insight, and discovery. To me. (not to mention a great way to snoop on people too ;-)

And all of this has nothing to do with you Bagpuss, except that you've given me new astrological "data" to observe and explore. So, thanks!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:09 AM

PPS -- Bagpuss, if you don't mind me asking and just out of curiousity, are you married? Or do you have a "significant other"? And if so, is she (or he) a Taurus? (born April 20-May 20).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

K this is really immature but .... 200!   YIPPEEEE!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:19 AM

If you generate enough data (eg 60 pages worth), you are bound to come up with a fair amount that fits. maybe thats why there are so may believes in in depth astrology. If they look into it deeply enough they are bound to find bits that fit like a glove. Very easy to forget about or explain away all the bits that don't quite fit, or are completely contradictory to your nature. I am sure if you did the long report based on one of the fictional people, I would find something that equally sounded very like me. In science if we do experiments with hundreds of statistical tests, if we used the ordinary tests, many of them would come up positive without there being an actual true phenomenon, just a statistical blip. This is called comprimising your confidence levels (also known as a "fishing expedition" which is very bad science). In these cases you have to choose between changing your level of proof to be very high for each individual test, or limiting the questions you ask beforehand and making just a few testable predictions. In the silly pseudo experiment we did here, I really did the second. I limited the prediction to one - that my short report generated from the site would be more recognisable to me as me than 3 other reports. You did not raise any objections to that test before the experiment, only once it had failed to support what you expected. It is very human to move the goalposts after the fact, but not very good science.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM

Yes I am married, and no he is not a Taurus. But I'm sure if you analysed his chart, he would have something in Uranus that would make you say, ah that explains that... ;-)

PS I have no problem with people believing in astrology or whatever; they can believe the earth rides on the back of a huge turtle if they want. I just don't agree with anyone trying to convince me of anything in the absence of any evidence.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:55 AM

I'm not trying to convince you, Bagpuss. ANd I did know that the "experiment" was silly, anyway, being based only on the first 2 (very general sections_ of a computer report, your own personal opinions (which are obviously biased AGAINST astrology) and an inaccurate birthtime. But I went along with it anyway, because I just love astrology, and looking at new material. It's fun!

I asked about your partner because according to your chart, your "Descendant" (the 7th house cusp, directly opposite the Ascendant, said to indicate partnerships and marriage) is in Taurus. However, it's on the very cusp of Taurus (lemme look again ... yup, 1 Taurus 10').

So, if you were actually born before 9 am (say, at 8:45), that 15 minute difference moves your Ascendant to 29 Libra, and your Descendant to 29 Aries. Curious -- is he an Aries?

I'm asking because the Descendant is one of many places on my own chart that IS highly accurate. With Gemini Rising, my Descendant is in Sagittarius. WEll, I've been 'married' three times so far -- and and two out of three of those partners -- in fact, the fathers of my children -- are both Sagittarians. (And I knew nothing about astrology till years later, though, or I might have made different choices!)

I also have dear ole 'malefic' Saturn sitting plunk in the middle of my 7th house -- the house of partnerships. And I have suffered extreme limitations and sorrow through my relationships in this life. None of them lasted more than 5 years. I'm single now, and loving it, and I've finally learned to accept my troubles with "significant others" with philosophical resignation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

Nope he is not an aries either. Keep going, if you keep repredicting, you should get it in at least 10 more goes...

And it shouldn't matter whether I am biased against astrology (which I wouldn't be if there were any evidence for it....) because it was a blind test, and I didn't know which one was meant to be me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

Egads not another PS -- sorry people but here it is anyway --

Just thinking -- even if he's not an Aries, Saturn is sitting in your 8th house, at 20 degrees Gemini (nowhere near the cusp, so this placement is unaffected by a few minutes difference in birthtime).

The 8th house is the house of sex and passion as well as death (highly related life experiences, it seems :-) while Saturn signifies difficulties, hardships, limitations, sorrow, karma.

Would you agree that a same-sex relationship is more difficult, more of challenge in many ways than the more usual variety (which is challenging enough already for most people)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

Sorry, I am confused, what have same sex relationships got to do with me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

I wasn't predicting, I was asking because I was curious. There's a difference.

If you really think your obvious prejudices and biases against astrology had no effect on your judgement of those reports, well then how can you call yourself a "scientist", least of all one with a psychological bent?

Anyone well-versed in psychology knows better than to blind themselves to the effect of a powerful variable like long-held personal prejudices and biases!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:25 AM

And pardon me, Bagpuss, but I thought I was dealing with a male here. If you're a woman, please excuse me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:31 AM

But I didn't know which one I wasn't supposed to choose (if I were subconsciously trying to spoil the experiment because of my supposed bias). And I honestly gave my true feelings about what each of them said.

And I am really not that biased against astrology. If some solid evidence came out that backed it up, I would believe in it tomorrow, regardless of whether I believe in the premises behind it. For example, I thinbk the premises behind acupuncture are all wrong, but I know that it works for certain conditions (mainly pain related). I just think it works for some other reasons which we are still discovering.

Actually I would have been quite impressed if I had read one of those charts and it sounded like me, more than the others. I know I was when I read the kabalarians short report into my name - even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

LOL - I am a lady, I wear ladies dresses... and stuff!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

ANd if you ARE a woman, that messes up those reports entirely. I entered your sex as male, which makes a big difference not in the placement of planets but in analysis and interpretation.

Anyways, obviously you have no real interest in your chart or you'd read it all through. ANd you don't care to learn anything about astrology either -- why should you? You think you already know it all! You just want to continue throwing mud at it as much as possible here (just like the GUEST who started this "troll" of a thread, probably).

WEll, I'll have no part of that, thanks. I refuse to waste my time and energy on people who are totally ignorant and strongly biased against astrology. Especially when they fail to demonstrate even a smidgeon of honest interest in discovering what it's all about.

So, fare thee well, Bagpuss! It's been fun, and I've learned a bit more about astrology through working with you here. Thanks again, to you and to the Cat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

... even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.

THere's your bias, again, Bagpuss. Attractive and appealing and very very convincing, isn't it? ;-)

As I said, you think you already know all there is to know about astrology -- and it's hooey. Well, hooey hooey am I to question such a scientific, logical, well-informed 'opinion' as this!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:54 AM

OK, not that I really care but I've known a couple people - with testicles and penises - who enjoy getting dolled up in miniskirts and pantyhose and padded bras and heels and makeup and stuff.

So, you really didn't answer the question of what sex you might be. ANd as I said, gender makes a big difference in the way a chart is analysed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

My post about being a lady with ladys dresses was a bit of an in joke, only for those who watch Little Britain. I was trying to keep things light hearted. (By the way I am female - sorry if that mucked up the chart, maybe you should have asked for all the required info before you started instead of making assumptions).

And no, I don't want particlularly want to learn about astrology, as I have been presented with no evidence that it has any truth to it. Otherwise I would spend my life learning about every alternative doodah under the sun, which I would find very boring.

I am sorry you have suddenly taken the huff. I was trying to keep things light hearted, but I know that doesnt always come across in print. Im not sure what I said that upset you. But if you enter a thread which is obviously wanting to debate whether astrology has any merit, I don't see why you would take offense that other people don't agree with it. And I don't know why you think it is a troll thread?

I have probably been one of the more open minded sceptics here - probably more open minded that you have been. You are already convinced in it, and I doubt that anything would change your mind. I have stated what it would take to start changing my mind. I think that makes me the open minded one and you the one who thinks they know it all already.

If you look back at my previous posts on the subjects you would notice that I was the one who brought up the research into relationship between personality and season of birth, and questioning the article that said there was no evidence no matter how vaguely worded was the premise.

Thanks for spoiling what i thought was a good natured disagreement of opinions.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

You don't think this was started as a troll thread? I beg to differ! (Duh!)

You're welcome, Bagpuss. PLease rest assured I'm not in a huff. If I was, believe me, you'd know it. I do have a quite the fiery and determined and willful Aries Sun, plus a bull-headed Taurus Moon. And I do make for quite the worthy adversary, when provoked. ANd I win hands down, too, 9 times out of 10.

Just ask my ex's. :-)

I did what I did as a kindness to you, on a very busy morning, simply because you requested it. I wasn't even trying to be a "scientist", and I'm certainly no astrologer.

I thought you were a guy. Pardon me. I could have asked I suppose, but it honestly didn't occur to me. I don't know too many women who'd choose a handle like "Bagpuss". Sounds like a combination of "ole bag" and "pussy", at least to me. But those are just my own preconceptions and biases, of course.

I did spend quite a bit of time and effort honouring your request to the best of my ability, on the off-chance that you were truly interested in learning about astrology -- and, more importantly, because you might have gain something beneficial from my efforts here.   Well, you're not interested, and you won't benefit, and you just confirmed all this once again, without a doubt. And that's perfectly ok too. Like I said, I've learned a learned a bit more about astrology myself, just by going over your chart. So it was more than worth it!

YOu have yourself an absolutely wonderful day now! I'm outta here -- it's Sunday, the suns shining, the snow's sparklin, the chickadees are cheepin and I'm going out for a long, long LOOOOONG walk on the Nature Trail with my son! YIPPPEEEEE!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

ummmm...Bagpuss made it clear in several posts that she was female...

but, to the point:
"... are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art ... of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report,"

If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing , would you have to try it 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?

Or in both of those cases, could you decide for yourself that the very conditions and acceptances necessary to participate were outside the boundaries that you recognized as safe, sane and reasonable?

Yes, I know that metaphorical examples can't quite pinpoint the exact issues involved, but they do show how difficult it is to convince someone of the value of something when they cannot accept the very basic first premises of the argument necessary to go a lot deeper into the experience.

Astrology requires suspending belief about certain rules of physics, logic and scientific method in order to grant credence and validity to a system based on hearsay, Gerrymandered statistics and ambiguous, emotionally loaded language.

I looked up my own chart on that page (based on precise time and location) and saw some things that 'seemed' to fit me, as well as some that didn't...and when I looked at daily 'readings', I read suggestions and generalized 'wisdom' that are, indeed, pretty good advice for almost anyone. I can easily see why many people get some 'help' and ideas for looking at their life from these writings.

It is a VERY common and understandable habit for people to look at an event, discussion, religion, political platform, etc., and extract from the complex format those things which feel relevant, applicable, and comfortable to themselves, and conveniently ignore or rationalize the stuff that they don't like or can't deal with.....
As you have seen, I (and some folks like Bagpuss) require more than elaborate charts and persuasive exponents with extensive 'history' to persuade us that the ***BASIC PREMISES*** are well founded. It is, like religion, a belief system.... stuff is claimed that cannot be verified or measured directly, and people like me, with built-in filters, can only shrug when we are told that "if we'd only study more detail and 'open ourselves' to the entire gamut of the knowledge base, we'd realize it's power to explain.....

Sorry...*smile*....but it all boils down to "you have to believe before you can know.", and some us just don't work that way...just as some are predisposed to be comfortable with it.

as one friend of mine said many years ago when she was looking up my chart, and I explained that I didn't put much stock in that stuff......"Oh...yes...that's JUST what your chart says you'd say!"

*grin*...can't argue with THAT much!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM

True enough Bill.
Slightly off topic - Bagpuss was the central character in a British children's TV show.
This Character was adored by many who were very young at the time including I suspect the bagpuss who is a guest here.
Am I right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

And Bagpuss gave a big yawn and settled down to sleep...

Now if my chart had said that I was baggy and a bit loose at the seams - the I WOULD have been impressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

Ah. That explains it. I could not imagine why anyone would freely choose the member name "Bagpuss".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Ah,well Emily loves you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM

OOPs, I have just realised that in my early posts, I mustn't have been logged in, so I came up as Guest. So Daylia wouldnt have known the earlier posts were me.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

I have noticed, Bill, that you seem to be irresistably attracted to threads about things you don't believe in or are sceptical about. You can always be relied upon to show up (as can Clinton Hammond, Pied Piper, Wolfgang, and a few others) Why is that? Does it satisfy some deep emotional need, do you think? ;-)

I am suggesting that sceptics are by nature very desirous of things to be sceptical about, and they look around for them like a dog searching hopefully for something really smelly to roll in...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:28 PM

Debate requires at least 2 perspectives Little Hawk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM

Aw... he's late .... here I still be ... gee, Bill, I *wonder* (but not tooooo hard :-) why you didn't choose to phrase your questions this way instead?   
   

"If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean sparkling clean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing appetizing , would you continue to ignore 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked disliked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood goodwill in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats whatever you pleased to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?"

Could it be, just possibly, that your words are slanted, biased and prejudiced against the subject of this thread???!!!????   oh noooo      not a scientific logical soul like Bill    notta chance    :-)


I'd like to add that I learned much more about astrology from Ivor's posts, the info Peace provided, and from Einstein and Jung (via the interesting ideas, observations and quotes I discovered and posted above) than by going over the reports I copied for Bagpuss (although that was interesting too, even though all are based on faulty data).   

So again, thanks all!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM

I think Bill phrased it that way because what I saw in the shop window so to speak (the brief report) gave me nothing to interest me further.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

Whenever ANYTHING claims "you have to believe before you can know", it's snake-oil....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

ANd you weren't interested to begin with, really. *yawn*

You already know it all, and it's a lot of hooey. Remember?

And Einstien? Oh well, he was just a hooey tooey. Jung? Phooey phooey! What do I care what they say? Gullible ole simpleminded farts!

Now Bill, and Wolfgang, and Bagpuss, TIA's co-workers, the Skeptics Dictionary --- THESE are the definitely most reliable, informed, enlightened, and accurate sources of wisdom and truth the Cat has to offer on the subject of astrology!   

:-)


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."

- ALBERT EINSTEIN


"Synchronicity does not admit causality in the analogy between terrestrial events and astrological constellations ... What astrology can establish are the analogous events, but not that either series is the cause or the effect of the other. (For instance, the same constellation may at one time signify a catastrophe and at another time, in the same case, a cold in the head.) ... In any case, astrology occupies a unique and special position among the intuitive methods... I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological phase, or an analogous event, was accompanied by a transit (particularly when Saturn and Uranus were affected)."

- CARL G. JUNG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

yep...that's kinda the way it is...like Bagpuss says.

Gee, Little Hawk....I'm not sure how to respond to your 'suggestion' that I look hard for stuff I know nothing about in order to 'roll about' in unpleasantness......

well, maybe I do after all.....Piffle! ;>)

This here place is a FORUM, where people put out ideas for discussion..(and some silly stuff just to make noise). I assume that both sides of all issues are fair game. You'll notice that I VERY seldom start threads to promote scepticism, just as I don't go knocking on the Jehovah's Witnesses doors in order to show them that Atheism is 'better'. (quaint idea, hmmm?)

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive the Highway of Generalization and Subjectivism. We aren't barricades, we just slow you down a bit and 'maybe' let you look for smoother pavement and possible detours when the ride gets bumpy. You can (and do) 'keep on truckin' if you've a mind to, and you may not even notice that some of those roads are just long, interesting circles! 'S alright....it's a metaphorical freeway, and you can even ignore the warning signs about "falling logic" "soft premises" and "foggy conditions". You can even drive slowly and miss most of us potholes...all we hope is that others on the road who are not sure of the route will see you trying to PATCH those holes, and examine why there ain't an easier way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM

"Einstein? Jung?"

Again, you show yourself guilty of logical fallacy.... Just because someone is an authority on ONE thing doesn't mean they know jack-shit about something/everything else...

So, Einsteins opinion of astrology doesn't matter a hill of beans... Nor does Jungs.... John Carpenter might make a damn good movie, but does that make him an authority when it comes to baking a cake?? (I donno... maybe Johnny is good at that too... Whenever I've sat down for dinner with him, he's never offered home-made cake for desert... )

The 'fact' is your 'facts' are debunked... But like a post-James-Randi-encounter-dowser, you cling to your belief, despite evidence to the contrary... The dictionary definition of delusion...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.

Those who believe simply have different notions of proof, data, testability and relevance than those who do not....the question is, do 'different' standards have equal status? How can we tell? Who decides? This is not something we just vote on. If I am right, I am right...even if 6 billion disagree. History is full of stories of what happened to some who chose to stubbornly refuse to 'believe' when they were told the 'truth'...Galileo and Giordano Bruno are a couple of examples.

Yep...I am stubborn...but it is based on many years of thinking about it and deciding that certain claims required more than just elaborate schemas.

Whether the title of this thread is trolling or not, it asked.....and I have my answers..*smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

I am merely suggesting, Bill, that a person can gain more far wisdom from self-observation than from debating endlessly with others about the things they believe or don't believe. Such debates usually change nothing, except that they harden people in their established positions and cause them to dislike one another.

Now, again....why are you so attracted to threads about things you are sceptical about? Why do you think you would be? No, I was not suggesting that you necessarily know nothing about those things (although that might sometimes be the case). I was suggesting that you are drawn to these debates for specific reasons. (as are we all)

What do you think those reasons might be? I could suggest some, but I'd rather you come up with them yourself.

Or would you rather just continue debating the relative merits of astrology...which will change nothing? Those who believe in it will go on believing, and those who don't won't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:52 PM

"gain more far wisdom from self-observation"

Omphaloskepsis is a worthless endeavour...

Unless you're looking for lint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

And "the unexamined life is not worth living"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

You found life in your belly button??

Take more showers!

:-P

Heh


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM

well, LH...I have posted more than once..several (5-6-7??) different times why I bother to debate and critique....and at least a couple times have been in direct response to you.

1) To force myself to think thru the issue and refine what I really think about it and why. You gotta work a bit to be sure you say what you mean and be relatively clear.

2) Because it would both dull and dangerous to let only one view of some of these issues grace these wide-ranging threads. These are not silly, neutral, irrelevant topics...They are about something, and the way we approach them is in many ways a mirror of how we act, vote, care, buy, support...etc., in the 'real world' where a few hundred votes in Florida can affect the entire way the country and the world are run for years to come. We make whatever waves we can, in the ways best suited to our status. 'Maybe' my exhortations about careful patterns of thought will have ripple effects...if Mudcat lasts as long as Max says it will...*grin*.

3) Because I feel I can be a moderating voice between the believers and claimers who unwaveringly support some of the arcane and abstruse claims that are made, and the loud, insulting, cynical notes of some of the naysayers who tend to ridicule rather than discuss & debate. (Why, some of them even from Canada..*grin*)

4) Because I have this background and a piece of paper that SAYS I am certified to meddle gently in areas where HOW to think and reason are legitimate issues! (Wolfgang is in many ways even more certified than I am, and has **credentials** ! *grin*..I know he can cite counter-examples more explicitly)

5) Because....and this is not meant to be cute or sarcastic....since I do realize that I am NOT likely to change many minds, I'd like to see people who DO continue to believe just as they always have understand what defenses and arguments are good and valid and relevant for their positions! Astrology and 'intelligent design' and religious doctrine and Tarot and Ouija boards and pre-cognition...to name a few...all have their history, backgrounds, studies and anecdotal reports to support various aspects of their claims.....and it is important to present whatever supposed evidence there is in the best way possible, as it may help to convince skeptics like ME someday as more information becomes available.

If I was to start over, I might say all that a little differently, or have 2 more reasons, but that's close.

oh....

6) because it's interesting to learn & compare ideas!!! And that could be the ONLY one if I was pressed about it!

3)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive

Ok, I'll do that, Bill. It'll be fun! ANd talk about synchronicity - as we speak, the two feet of snow that's fallen over the last couple weeks here is quickly melting in the bright afternoon sun. So my son and I spent a good deal of time navigating our way around the biggest, darkest, deepest, iciest, absolutely filthiest potholes of the season yet. (Hee hee!   Sure you ain't a psychic, Bill?)

In fact, some of those potholes are causing small lakes covering half the road, threatening every vehicle and passerby. So our little excursion did take a bit longer, but hey. We were out for the sunshine, fresh air, company and exercise anyway. Hardly noticed 'em in fact, except to make a bit of extra fun!

And next time I encounter those deep dark icy filthy dangerous potholes, I'll be sure to remember you fondly, Bill. And Wolfgang too, and TIA ... and ... look, look! They must be her co-workers!

Hey let's name that one Bagpuss (after the ripped up bag floating in it) ... and *egads* this really reminds me of Clinton's grandfather's dog's asshole ... and .... and ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM

So... more Ad Hominem attacks...

It only speaks to how weak your case is...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

OK , Bill D., one or two 'detours' around the potholes.

There are other conceptions of how the universe is than the one proposed by science as normally practised. Somebody - ah, I've found it.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (F.Scott Fitzgerald).

Also, I don't see astrology so much in terms of prediction, more, like Gestalt Therapy, as uncovering potentialities and the choices of the person (or country, organization etc.) whose horoscope is under consideration.(Even tho' I have two serious-astrology tomes, both published 1981, both suggesting the Soviet Union would break up by the end of the 80s, when Pluto would, for the first time, pass over the place in the zodiac where the Sun was when the Soviet Union came about in 1917. Pluto signifies death and regeneration, the Sun the heart or core.)



Someone reading a 'cold' interpretation is likely, as already demonstrated, not to see varying amounts of the reading as sounding like them. That's in part because none of us has realised much of our true being, whereas the chart is really a 'portrait' of the full potential of the person.

I got interested in astrology because I wanted to get to the bottom of things, because I'm left-field/contrary/Uranian enough (Uranus in 12th conjunct Ascendant), and because I was curious how this other world had been so invisible to me up to then. ('Occult'
means 'hidden').

Bill, I've already put some potholes of my own in earlier posts. Discussion is a two-way sort of thing, of course.

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

I like that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote, Ivor....I do suspect we might not see exactly the same wisdom in it, however.

as to "There are other conceptions of how the universe is..." ..indeed there are. What is yet to be determined is whether it can be several of those at once. If not, and it 'is' only one VERY complex, but unchanging way, then we are like the 4 or 5 blind men, all arguing about what an elephant is like after feeling different parts of it.

I, even though partially blind, am willing to share in puzzling out what the elephant 'might' be like from all the other reports, but I'm not willing to base much of a cosmology on any of the individual theories....those 'trunk' worshipers need to come feel this leg!


and that's maybe a wretched excess of metaphor for now.....

I need some sleep before I start musing on "what one should fill potholes with"!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

Reasonable, Bill, reasonable. Perhaps we should have a thread sometime to discuss why people look for things to disagree about. Could be interesting.

Well, maybe later. Haven't got time for it right now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

questioning of Sheldrake's credibility is a bit of hyperbole (M.Ted)

Well, but Bill was only quoting from your link, M.Ted.

That bit of 'research' only adds to the doubts in Sheldrake's credibility. I do not doubt his counting, I bet he's correct in that. His trick is to compare what should never be compared in any meaningful sense.

Double-blind testing is only necessary under some very specific conditions and unnecessary (or even impossible) else. These conditions occur in many of the experiments in parapasychology and not very often in psychology and (nearly) never in the physical sciences.

He found that, while it is used more that 80% of the time in parapsychological research, he found that it is only ocassionally used in medical and psychological sciences, and nearly never in biological and physical sciences

Such a silly argumentation is an advocate's argument, meant to score an easy point with those lacking knowledge. For the others it is a belly laugh. Double blind means that neither the analyser nor the participants in an experiment know in which test condition the participants are run.

The participants in physics are usually particles. They are not allowed to 'know' in which condition they are run in a double-blind procedure. Any scientist submitting a paper to a physical sciences journal explaining how the particles were blinded to the experimental conditions would get a letter back asking whether she was still sane. A double-blind procedure makes no sense at all here. In biology as well, if you state that the rats (monkeys, flies,...) were blind to the experimental conditions the nicest the editor will do is to erase such a nonsensical sentence without further comment.

A simple-blind procedure sometimes can make sense in the physical sciences when the counting has a subjective component like for instance in a cloud chamber. Most of the time, the measurement has no subjective component worth mentioning (or may even by done by an apparatus). In all these instances even a single blind procedure ("we did not tell our automatic counter in which condition it did the counting. It was only debriefed after the experiment was completely finished") is at the very best superfluous, or worse, an indicator of anincompetent.

The whole Sheldrake argument and counting is very obviously fishy and the only question remaining is whether he knows that and still does it for the effect in discussions (that's what I guess) or whether he himself believes what he writes to be sound.

The only subject area in which he may have a point is in medicine which is haunted by sloppy experimenting even in mainstream medicine research.

Speaking about Einstein, here's another quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I'm not sure about the former.

As for the quote above "astrology is a science..." one astrology site just copies it from the other. Michael Shermer (editor of SKeptic magazine) once has asked for a source of that quote at the Einstein archive and got the following response:
According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

That's about the usual carefulness of astrology.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Bill, if your pothole role ever does get too tired and old for you, you could try fixing with exactly the opposite ingrediants that created it in the first place. "Fill" your ignorance of the subject at hand with real practical first-hand knowledge; your
inexperience with experience; and your preconceptions, prejudices and biases with objectivity, tolerance and truth.

ANd if this doesn't appeal, you could fill your potholes with the most difficult and humbling of all ingredients.

Silence.

It's an excellent way of conserving personal time and energy, and ensuring that personal ignorance and prejudices do not mislead, offend, distract, delay or otherwise harm fellow 'travellers' on the road of life.

But seriously, your potholes aren't big enough to bother me. And if they were, I wouldn't be bothered trying to fix 'em for you. THat's your problem!

Nope, I'd just make me another road! Easy. I like doing that, and I've always preferred the 'road less travelled' anyway.

And wow, it's amazing to me how quickly Einstein and Jung are outsmarted, discredited, put in their proper 'place' by the absolute geniuses who post on this site! WHat a fountain of wisdom and knowledge and truth the Cat must be!!   ;-)

Seriously though, if I wanted information about the best Canadian-made guitars for the buck, I wouldn't ask Einstein. I'd (maybe) ask Clinton! That's because while Albert had no experience with or working knowledge of Canadian guitars, CLinton does.

In the same vein if I wanted to learn about astrology, believe me I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang, or Bagpuss, or TIA's friends. These people know absolutely diddley squat about astrology, by their own admission; therefore, their opinions on the subject are about as valuable and appealing to me as several big buckets of buttered diarrhea.

No, I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully.   Jung too, and the other great scientists and thinkers throughout history who DID undertake a serious and well-documented study of astrology throughout their lives.

But most of all, as LH pointed out --- I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known.   "Believing" just doesn't cut it, and it never has. For me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Sorry Wolfie, that claim about Einstein is most likely false. I'll look up that reference again, and post it here when I have time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Fron James Randi's website :

"Recently, an astrology group has been repeating on the Internet an old canard about Albert Einstein, who they claim wrote:


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."
Former astrologer Geoffrey Dean, writing to Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, said:


"Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote. In a letter in 'Correlation' June 1991... I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, 'Manuel d'astrologie,' where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.... Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest that Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings."
Dean ended by suggesting that the purported quotation should be disregarded until authenticated. Dr. Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, chimed in with:


According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus. In fact, it is in her edited volume THE EXPANDED QUOTABLE EINSTEIN ... under "Attributed to Einstein," along with hundreds of others just like it, such as "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" and "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory." ... Under astrology, Einstein did say: "The reader should note [Kepler's] remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead."
To amplify the naive opinion of Einstein, expressing his conviction that astrology was not to be taken seriously and was now devalued, I will quote from an 1896 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (just donated to the JREF by James Harter) on the subject:


Astrology, the so-called science by which various nations, in various ways, have attempted to assign to the material heavens a moral influence over the earth and its inhabitants.... Even at the present day a few may be found who, from a superstitious reverence for the past, or the spirit of contradiction, pride themselves on their adherence to the belief of stellar influences. It is no longer necessary to protest against an error which is dead and buried ...
Au contraire. Every celebration or assumption of the demise of any specific form of superstition or pseudoscience, whether framed by an Einstein or the editors of an encyclopedia, is followed by a groan of dismay when that notion proves itself a Hydra....

I quote these observations of Dean, Kelly, Calaprice, and Shermer here so that the reader may recognize that when properly looked into, such mysteries readily yield to research and reason."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Daylia,

if you really find a source in Einstein's writings for that quote, you should not only post it here but publish a correction in the journal Correlation to the letter from Geoffrey Dean published in June 1991, 11(1):35-36. Dean had then tried to trace that quote back to where it started and it invariably appears attributed to Einstein but with no exact reference. Dean's candidate for the first appearance of that quote in print is Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, publ. in the early 1950s, where this quote appears in the introduction without any reference. Happy hunting.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

It looks as if the jury remains out on whether Einstein ever endorsed astrology if I may quote from Robert Todd Carroll's "Skeptic's Dictionary:
April 18, 2000. I received an e-mail today from Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, regarding a widespread claim among astrologers that Albert Einstein once wrote: "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it."

Ivan contacted Geoffrey Dean, another renowned expert and critic of astrology, who wrote the following:

Dear Ivan,   Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote.

In a letter in Correlation June 1991, 11(1):35-36, I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.

The Hirsig book ends with a postscript dated February 1950, so the quotation must date from before that time (Einstein died in 1955). Hirsig's widow did not inherit his papers, so she was unable to check them to see if they gave the source. Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings.

My letter ended "Accordingly, until the quote is authenticated, it should be ignored lest it add to the blight generated by Newton-Halley, Evangeline Adams, and other famous-but-wrong quotes."

Hope this helps.

Regards, Geoffrey

Oddly, Google doesn't seem to be able to come up with any reference to the quote that isn't on an astrology site or debating its authenticity. Which is odd, given that almost every pronouncement of the old goat is recorded copiously all over the web.
Stephen Hawking has his own views on astrology. Shall we put him down as a "maybe" then?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

*daylia*....I'm not sure if you read carefully either my post of March 5- 1:35PM or Wolfgang's directly above. I make the point that 'expertise' within astrology is not what the dispute is about. The world's most famous and widely recognized 'authorities' on Ether Waves.... or on Atlantis ....or on the nature & habits of Elves... must still be asked what ***PROOF*** they have that their subject matter actually exists! Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis, I don't have to be an expert to ask IF the information about it is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolfgang notes an additional problem with the Einstein quote: namely, he doesn't seem to have said that!!!!

According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

(things like this are why the Snopes.com website is so useful...it investigates whether widely held factual beliefs are actually true)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastly: *sigh*....

"I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known."

...not exactly. One's own experiences are certainly important, and cannot be ignored, but you only have to interview 6 'witnesses' to an auto accident, or ask your spouse what happened on your first date to be reminded that certain aspects of our memories and our knowledge of how we got those memories is regularly flawed and inconsistent.
There are, unfortunately, many ways in which presumed 'experience' can be faked, mistaken, mis-remembered, distorted...etc.

Drugs, dreams, fear, peer-pressure, pain, (and pleasure)etc...can all convince us that we saw, heard, felt and remembered stuff that is not quite accurate. This is why rules for testing, comparing, verifying and repeating experiences are developed! People who 'saw' a ghost have no reason to doubt that they 'had an experience', but they DO have reason to wonder what the precise cause of the experience was.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:10 PM

Daylia, if you looked at a large group of babies born within minutes of eachother, would astrology predict/expect them to be more alike in personality than a group of randomly chosen people?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

"I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully"
Except those aren't his words....   Ponder THAT carefully....

"I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang"
So you only want to ask people who agree with you!?!? Go right ahead... You can get together in one big circle-jerk of self-delusion...


" Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis"
We're never going to either, because it NEVER existed... Plato was writing FICTION when he invented it...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM

Well I'm no expert, but I do know that astrology doesn't predict a thing. Astrology is a description, not a prediction. That's been explained several times already on this thread. So the answer's no, Bagpuss. Sure, those babies would have similar charts, but even 10 minutes difference in birthtime or a 20-mile difference in location makes for significant changes as we've seen. And as Ivor explained above, those charts display tendencies, or potentials, which may or may not ever be realized by the individual.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:23 PM

"those charts display tendencies, or potentials, which may or may not ever be realized by the individual"

If I wrote long enough I could come up with a list of "tendencies, or potentials" that would apply to every human on the planet, and (probably even some who believe in astrology)

That it was generalized enough to be applicable in some way to everyone still wouldn't make it worth the paper it was written on....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:28 PM

But surely of a group of 2000 children are born with similar tendencies, they are going to grow up with personalities more similar than if they had completely different tendencies? Otherwise what is the point of astrology, if all it says is that you are born with this tendency, but it will have no effect of the way you are now, as you may or may not realise these tendencies, and whether or not you realise them will be no greater than chance in the general population?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM

So why then would an astrologer say the following? I am going to quote from astrologers from now on wherever I can in order to clarify what astrology does or does not say/predict/describe. And also because Daylia might consider these people authorities whose word she trusts in relation to astrology.

"According to John Addey (1967), in perhaps themost extensive survey of time twins made by an astrologer, 'one would expect to find really exceptional [his emphasis] similarities of life and temperament only in those born almost exactly at the same time
[within a few minutes] and in the same locality', nevertheless 'the tendency for similarities to appear in the lives of those born on the same day must remain strong and well worth investigating' (p. 14). So births more than a day apart might not qualify."

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

So say you, Clinton, and a few of the other "potholes" here. Don't need astrology to predict that!

If I can find the source again (the quote is said to be taken from Einstein's personal letters) I'll post it here.

And even if they are not Einstein's words, they ARE the truth. Very poetically expressed, too (don't know if I'd have gone as far as 'life-giving elixir' bit but ...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:46 PM

Bill, I strongly suggest that you leave Elves out of this discussion, okay? ;-D It's a sensitive matter with a lot of people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:47 PM

" even if they are not Einstein's words, they ARE the truth. Very poetically expressed"

See again.. you cannot even admit when you're wrong... You tried to lend credence to your 'side' by calling in an authority (Who wasn't an authority at all as a matter of fact).. When people called BS, you ignored that fact and try to claim it has value anyway... Your backpedalling must be damn good exercise...

Well, on the subject of find a good quote to support your argument....

"You can't always have things like they are in poetry. Poetry isn't what you'd call truth. There ain't room enough in the verses"
--a singers commentary on "The Ballad Of Sam bass," taken from "A Treasure Of American Folklore"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM

ok. strike Elves...I sure wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities here....in place of elves, substitute "fairies"...now there's a neutral subject, goldurn it! ☺


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Bagpuss, do these words ring a bell? "I'm no expert." "Astrologer is only a hobby to me." "I'm no astrologer."

YOu want you answers you can trust? Ask an astrologer, or study it yourself till you're satisfied. You want to argue? Bother someone else.

Clinton, when I know I'm wrong, I say so if I feel it's necessary. That is not the case here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

" That is not the case here."

But it is... Einstein didn't say what you tried to claim he said...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

Clinton - it's like religion. Some people have a need to believe in this sort of thing; it's a touchstone against the apparent randomness and inchoate nature of existence. No amount of logic is going to dislodge that belief, any more than an atheist can convince the devoutly religious, because belief lies beyond the realm of logic.
And even if you were to shake someone's belief in astrology, they'd probably replace it with something else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:13 PM

Yup. Same thing that happens when you shake someone's belief in atheism...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

Athism by definition is about nonbelief.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:15 PM

As is atheism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

"No amount of logic is going to dislodge that belief"

I have no desire to dislodge any belief... If you want to believe the world is hollow and that the moon is made of green cheese, you go right ahead....    just don't expect me to 'respect' your beliefs-based-on-delusion just because they happen to be dear to you....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM

Atheism is a belief in nonbelief.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:17 PM

ANd Gervase -- beliefs may be certainly shaken. Knowledge cannot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:20 PM

At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python sketch, no it's not. Atheism is non belief in a god. Full stop. There is no 'belief' involved.
A belief is simply that which is believed as accepted opinion or which is taken as true in the absence of knowledge based on empirical truth.
Athiests want facts, believers tend not to need them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM

Depends what you think you know....

A few hundred years ago, people KNEW the world was flat...

John Nash KNEW he had a room-mate when he was in university....

A good friend of mine KNEW he could fly when he jumped off a 10 story building and killed himself...

So, ill-informed, mentally ill, or on drugs.... what's your excuse Daylia?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM

"Atheism is a belief in nonbelief."

piffle! That is just playing with words and defining concepts narrowly to suit your interests.
Besides, you'll find levels and varieties of atheism, just as you find many modes of religiosity (did I just coin a term?)

Some atheists vehemently oppose 'belief' while others simply say they choose to 'not accept' religious beliefs without more evidence. Others oppose 'religion' but not belief per se. Still others react to specific religious claims, but embrace some sort of Pan-Theism (much as Little Hawk suggests in many posts)...a lot of fundamental Christians would label him an atheist for not accepting God, Jesus and strict interpretation of the Bible)...

we can debate, but tossing "bumper sticker" type slogans around hardly promotes understanding.

(I hope you realize that, much as you said earlier, critiquing arguments has nothing to do with judging you as a person....I'd hope that we could, if necessary, conduct a more detailed debate over coffee and still smile at the end)

(to put it differently, I don't debate with fools that I suspect are not even trying and won't even hear me....I could point to threads I don't go near! *grin*)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM

"..beliefs may be certainly shaken. Knowledge cannot."

please don't deduce from that shaky notion (if it IS true, it is only trivially true)that "If it's not shaken, it must be knowlege." Then you get stubborness defining fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:37 PM

Atheism is non-belief in a certain type of God...the God you imagine in your mind when you make up this idea about the God you don't believe in. That God may in no wise resemble the God of someone else who does believe in what he terms "God".

To put it more simply, Bill...and Clinton...I ALSO do not believe in the God you don't believe in! ;-P But I do believe in God. But not the God of the Bible, per se. And not the God that is separate from you or me or anyone else. And not the God that judges people.

I believe in Life. To me, it's holy. To me it's eternal. To me, it is God. It belongs to no religion, but they do make attempts to describe it now and then or they say something about it.

Atheists also believe in life. Therefore, atheists believe in my God, they just don't realize it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:52 PM

"I believe in Life"

It's not what it used to be http://www.life.com


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

Right...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

" I believe in Life. To me, it's holy. To me it's eternal."

Talk New Age all ya want, it's old age gonna get you in the end....

Or in the immortal words of GTA3s "Lazlow", "Go hug a rainbow!"

:-P


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:11 PM

It's already getting my body, man...what a drag, eh? This physical life has its drawbacks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:16 PM

From Chris Rocks "No Sex In The Champagne Room"

Here's a horoscope for everyone-
Aquarius- your gonna die
Capricorn- your gonna die
Gemini- your gonna die twice
Leo- your gonna die
Scorpio- your gonna die f*ckin

"physical life has its drawbacks"
As it's the only life we have any evidence for, it sure beats FK outa the alternative....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM

You know Issac Newton? The first person to explain why the Planets orbit they way they do?

Well, most of his work was actually on decoding the Book of Revalation. He was an expert on it. He still didn't manage to make it into the date of the end of the world, or even a recipe for mushroom kebabs.

Just being an expert and a genius isn't enough to make randomness into anything more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Atheism is a belief in non-belief. There is just as much "scientific" evidence of the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of atheism as for the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of religion.

Notta smidgeon.

Atheistic beliefs are every bit as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic variety that spawned them.

However, knowledge - specifically, truthful knowledge - is not. Even in the presence of the deepest, darkest, dirtiest and most dangerous of potholes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:56 PM

You were doing fine there, Little Hawk, agreeing with my explanation of different types of 'atheism'...and even enlarging on my description of you as a Pantheist-- but then you had to end it with the same type of linguistic fuzziness as *daylia* used:

"
Atheists also believe in life. Therefore, atheists believe in my God, they just don't realize it!"

The first part of that, if it means anything, is either trivially true or a rank overgeneralization....or so ambiguous as to be silly.

The 2nd part is both incorrect and a logical fallacy based on unsubstantiated premises.

My God = life,
Atheists believe in Life
Therefore atheists believe in my God.

'life' does not fit the usual definition of a God...1st premise is an equivocation on the term.

Atheists are unlikely to USE the word 'believe' in that way, so 2nd premise commits the 'fallacy of ambiguity' as well as not being accurate.

The conclusion therefore, although it sort of follows logically from the premises, fails because of the status of the premises.

...and no, it ISN'T a matter of opinon how the logic can be applied. The rules of logic are as close to an absolute as anything we can discuss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:34 PM

Philosopher or not, just like everyone else on the planet you see only what you want to see, Bill. And that's if you can bypass seeing only that which YOU actually are (but are mostly unaware of, as Ivor pointed out) in everything and everyone around you.

Does it bother you to think that I (or LH or Ivor or whoever) really do know the truth about a lot of things you still haven't a clue about? Or that there are other ways of knowing besides the one you happen to be accustomed to?

Or could it be because Venus went inconjunct Uranus tonight?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:46 PM

ok, *daylia*...I guess you have outlasted me. You are now just repeating the same unfounded statements and arbitrary 'definitions'. More rounds of "No, it isn't" "Yes, it is" won't serve much purpose.

   I see no evidence that you even see the point I was making, so we can't compare many ideas from here on .....

   Your position about astrology hasn't been DIS-proved by anything I said, so I'll leave it at that. (We Taurans are pretty stubborn, I hear)....there's enough up above to re-read if you ever get the urge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:10 PM

I was typing while you were posting it seems...

No, I am not bothered by your confidence that, having data about my birth, you might know more about me than I do. Bill Gates probably has more yet.

   You are less likely than 'ol Bill G to try to mess with my life on the basis of your ideas about me, so I'll just let the planets go on in their orbits and conjunct as they will. *grin*...

(That's Denver, Colorado, 5:34 AM, May 20, 1939...Mercy Hospital (if it still exists) Now you can explain, at least to yourself, why I am so tedious about trying to make discussions balanced.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:19 AM

Bill, I know you believe in life. Everybody does...or else they kill themselves. As far as I'm concerned, life is God.

So let me ask you then...what is life? You tell me what you think it is. I think it's conscious being, being consciously aware that "I am" or that "you are". That's life. Without such conscious being there is no awareness whatsoever. Without any awareness there is no life.

That's my opinion. I don't give a frog's patootie if that's not good enough for you or if it fails to meet your stringent standards of "substantiation". I give less than a frog's patootie about that as a matter of fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:27 AM

Well Daylia, it seems I now know more about certain basic aspects of astrology than you do. You keep telling me I have to know more about it to understand it properly. Maybe you do too.

You didnt just say you werent an expert, you said you weren't an expert, but you did KNOW certain things. These things that you knew were not backed up by someone more expert in astrology than you. [Well I'm no expert, but I do know that astrology doesn't predict a thing. Astrology is a description, not a prediction. That's been explained several times already on this thread. So the answer's no, Bagpuss.]

Belief can be shaken, knowledge cannot??? If what I quoted to you doesn't shake at least on bit of knowledge you thought you had, then it isn't because knowledge cannot be shaken, it is because you refuse to allow it to be shaken.

And I never managed to get to the point of what I was trying to say which was that given what that astrologer said and given that there has indeed been such a study of time twins which showed what he expected from astrology was false, that should be enough to make anyone question the validity of what they believe/"know".

If you were really interested in whether what you believe in is true, you might read this study as a starting place. If not, then maybe it shows that you are happy to believe in something that is not true because it brings you some sort of happiness to do so. And that's fine, but we will all know where we stand. Here is the study in question.

"You want to argue? Bother someone else."

I am only bothering those who choose to be bothered by participating in a thread which centres on a debate about the validity of astrology. If you never wanted to be part of such a debate, then why were you here all this time. You were fighting your corner, and as much a part of the debate as the rest of us. In fact if you weren't here the thread would probably have died long ago. Debate needs two sides you know.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:35 AM

Bagpuss, I suspect we are talking about different meanings of the verb 'to know' here. Don't ask me why, I just know we are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:08 AM

Well it was Daylia's use of the words both times, so at least she should be internally consistent?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:40 AM

Atheism is a belief in non-belief. There is just as much "scientific" evidence of the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of atheism as for the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of religion.
Notta smidgeon.
Atheistic beliefs are every bit as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic variety that spawned them.
However, knowledge - specifically, truthful knowledge - is not. Even in the presence of the deepest, darkest, dirtiest and most dangerous of potholes.


Is tht really your sincerely held view? If it is and you're not being ironic, sarcastic or in some way satirical, then I'm aghast.
Aghast at the apparent smug self-satisfaction with an ignorance that effectively snuffs out the Enlightenment and would have us back in the Dark Ages intellectually. You may not like the real world and find it overly challenging, but you can't just make it go away it with such twaddle.
I really do suggest you broaden your reading and challenge yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:51 AM

Sorry - that was a tad ad hominem, but sometimes frustration makes boors of us all. Apologies Daylia if that comes across as a personal attack - it's your beliefs I want to rattle, not your bones!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:52 AM

I know that the universerse was created by a dustbin man called Reg on his afternoon off down in the potting shed. There is absolutely no evidence that the non belief in this is true, therefore it is just as much a faith position as any other. But because I don't believe in Reg, I know him to be true, then it must be so.

Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

I was once attacked by Occam's razor gang. Still feel cut up about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:30 AM

Just to repeat Kendall's quote,"The truly wise man is sure of nothing."

or,"To know that you do not know is the beginning of wisdom." Some twit or other called, what does this say?, funny name, how do you say it?, Socrates. Wild.


Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:03 AM

Citation is one thing, but why is it that one just gets a pile of quotations in response when one questions matters of faith and belief? Can people not think for themselves, or do they always have to lean on the gnomic words of others?

Let's get a few more off our chests:
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know (Ralph Waldo Emerson),
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation (Oscar Wilde), and
Quotation: the act of repeating erroneously the words of another. (Ambrose Bierce).

Far better than a handful of quotes, however, would be a reference to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which said that astrology had any basis in fact. For sure, the time of year in which one is born could have an influence, but the point of astrology is surely the influence of the heavenly bodies (or at least those various stars and satellites on which astrologers agree) on our lives.
Is there anywhere some reputable research which resoundingly proves astrology to be the 'fact' that some here claim it to be? Or should we post-enlightenment types remain sceptical and file it away with chiromancy, tarot, reading the tea leaves, inspecting the livers of freshly-slaughtered sheep and all the other attributes of the deluded and the deluding down the ages?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:04 AM

No, I don´t believe. But I have read a little about it, and didn´t find any astrologer (serious astrologers as they name themselves) who could explain WHICH KIND of energy is somehow influencing or describing the "house where one lives" or the "field where one plays his life". I know, they don't predict, they only describe.

If the birth of a child (why not the conception?) is a physical fact, and some kind of energy determines his/her initial conditions in function of his/her moment and place of birth, HOW SHOULD THAT ENERGY BE MEASURED? Is it gravitational (like the body of the mother) ? Magnetic? Light-related ? Sub-atomic particles ? Cosmic radiation ?

Early astrologers studied only what they saw with their naked eyes, and ignored 99% of what the average student knows today. Modern astrologers should be able to explain the basics of their technique in more modern terms. Complicated calculations are not an answer by themselves.

Otherwise, I understand that most people do need a belief, and if that belief explains how they should behave, it is a real RELIEF and will be more than welcome.

Un abrazo from Buenos Aires
Andrés


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:05 AM

The truly wise man is sure of nothing." What's so special about nothing?

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool, avoid him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, he is a sage, hear him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows, he is an asset, strip him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, he is an asshole, f*** him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM

From an empirical point of view the endeavour of astrology has failed completely (A. Hergovich, Die Psychologie der Astrologie, my translation), is the summary of Hergovich after a thorough review of the literature.

I've written an invited review of Hergovich's book last month and during that work have reread some of the original studies. Over and over again, empirical studies (some even by astrologers) have found no effect. The few that have found effects (Mayo et al., Sachs, Gauqulin,...) had methodological problems. Astrological literature tends to report the initial successes and skip over the later follow-up work.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.

Ivor, (or Daylia) I have not the impression that you have read any of the many original studies about astrology in a serious (peer reviewed) journal. You seem to be talking from a position of ignorance. Some of your statements could come directly from a chapter titled "The excuses of the astrologers" in Hergovichs book.

The only really interesting question is how a belief survives in the teeth of empirical failure. The "feeling of evidence" acts strongly for astrology, in particular among the practitioners. For someone who, like Daylia, puts "personal experience" over all data, this feeling has a hard to resist strength. A fairly recent book by Vyse, The Psychology of Superstition (I have retranslated its German title, the English title may differ) or even the old same-titled book by Jahoda list a number of factors that can lead to a persistence of belief.

BTW, Daylia, I'm still interested whether you have read the Einstein quote with a reference or without.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:47 AM

You are less likely than 'ol Bill G to try to mess with my life on the basis of your ideas about me

Mess with your life? Awww ... you sound like such the paranoid, misinformed little camper! Why do you think I have any interest at all in your life or your chart?

Let me put those fears to rest right now, Bill. I do not have any interest in you, your chart or your life Bill. ANd even if I did, how I could possibly mess with it?

YOu're the one choosing to discuss a subject you don't care for, one that you know absolutely nothing about save your life-long prejudices and misconceptions about. You choose to read what I have to say, and to have your own say about it. Now, if you think those choices are 'messing with your life', simple. Choose something else.

so I'll just let the planets go on in their orbits and conjunct as they will. *grin*...

Well, the planets go about thier business without your help or permission anyway, Bill. So, good plan - you right about this at least!

Gervase, I know. the truth can seem quite ghastly at first glance. But once the initial shock wears off and your awareness/understanding deepens a bit, I'm sure you'll feel a bit better.

What I said is the truth. Atheistic beliefs are just as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic ones from whose 'loins' they sprang.

And Wolfgang, peer reviewed journals may be your personal version of the Holy Word, but they honestly mean diddely squat to me. Like many other subjects you enjoy arguing about (even in spite of your ignorance and lack of experience), astrology is still beyond the very limited (but improving quickly!) scope of modern science anyway.

And wow, there sure are a lot of potholes around here today. So many, one can hardly see the road! I'll be sure to wear my hipwaders and rubber boots when I check in later. And I see I've missed one of Ivor's posts -- so I'll be sure to return when time permits.

Have yourselves a star-studded day now,

daylia










.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:58 AM

Daylia - adding little smileys after snide comments does not actually make them less snide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

Atheistic beliefs from Theistic loins?
Err...no.
As well as presupposing that god(s) created man rather than the opposite.
Atheistic writings predate all of the major world religons with the possible (and highly debatable) exception of Hinduism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:09 AM

Smileys, TIA? Sorry, I don't see any (in my last post anyway). And as for making snide comments, my expertise in that particular area has grown immensely since I joined the Cat. That's because I have so many thrown at me, so regularly here. You people are great tutors in that regard.

Oops gotta go ... duty calls.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:10 AM

300!!   This is MY DAY!! And the stars didn't even hafta tell me. Although Venus looked so absolutely lovely early this morning, I knew it would be a good one ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM

I see - I appear to have misread this thread entirely.
Daylia is the one whose intellectual rigour grants her access to the truth, and folk like Wolfgang - just a dumb scientist after all - are ignorant! And my own 'beliefs' are actually shaky and vulnerable.
Now it all becomes clear. In fact, so clear that daylia has won me over. I've changed my mind - I'm convinced; astrology is real and scientific methodology is all wrong. Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?









*sheesh*
But, to return to a dull coda, before I sign on the dotted line, is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible? Or do we really have to go on the admittedly rather more sophisticated basis of daylia's "Cos I said so"?
Hands up those who would want to go down that route for, say, medical treatment?
On the one hand they could have a procedure proven and repeated by practitioners and subjected to empirical scrutiny and peer review, and on the other they could have some procedure recommended on the say-so of someone who admits that they haven't read much about the subject, and no, they can't point to any proof that it works, but - hell - it does work BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Form an orderly queue please...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:20 AM

Daylia -

Smiley follows snide comment on 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM.

Now please cite date and time for any post I have made that contains any nasty comment directed at you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM

Hah, this astrology stuff is brilliant. I can get away with murder, and people will still think I'm lovely. I've just followed *daylia*'s link to get my own reading and it says:
You have a personal chemistry that never fails to stimulate people to be friendly toward you. No one should feel any discomfort with you because you project yourself freely and honestly.
You relate easily to all types of people and are friendly to everyone, regardless of their social status.


In fact it says I'm an all-round, splendid sort of chap. At the risk of embarrassing myself, it went on:
Your mind is versatile but strong...you have sufficient taste to set aside your desires... possess a flair for the life of nobility and regality...rank, generous, and amiable disposition...always act better as a leader than a subordinate...sincere and affectionate relationships...Imagination, a tenacious disposition and ability to relate to the public are among your attributes...Destiny may grant you sufficient strength of character and even opportunities to carry out your wishes to their utmost...
Of course, anyone who knows me will recognise this fine fellow!

But then I started putting in other times and places, and they all came up with wonderful people; people who were honest and true, who had the potential for great success and happiness - I realised that I was all things to all men, and wholly wonderful, whenever or wherever I was born. Oddly, in none of the readings was I told I was a gullible fool to be seeking answers through astrology. There was, however, a link at the bottom of each reading which said: "Making a fortune with Astrology".
Hmm...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?

That secret is revealed only when the nose conjuncts Uranus, Gervase. So if you really really need to know, assume the position!

Too inflexible, you say? Tsk tsk. Here's another option, then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:46 AM

GUEST - Yeah, but who (or what) created that dustbin man Reg????

Well???? (grin)

Life itself is so impressive, why make up an anthropomorphic God figure as the agent of it?

Most chimps, I am sure, would come up with a chimpanzee God. And they'd be right, in a sense, because the highest intelligence identifiable as moving through the chimpanzee archetype would be exactly what gives them life. Fish would come up with a fish God. They'd be right too.

The wisest is s/he who comes up with a God that is the intelligence and energy that brings forth and sustains ALL forms, not just one's one familiar form.

A study of advanced Vedanta (Hindu religion) or Buddhism or Taoism will shed much light on that. Buddhists and Taoists don't personalize God in a human form at all, but they recognize a divine and intelligent order at work in the Universe. Hindus superficially characterize that same divine order in the symbolic forms of many Gods and Goddesses, but they realize that those are simply outward symbols...aspects of something indefinable and omnipresent.

I find the Eastern religions, in general, to be far more perceptive than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate when it comes to this sort of thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Pleasing analysis there, Gervase! ANd along the same lines, here's the section of my own report that I enjoy most, describing a Gemini Ascendant.

And I'm sure even the potholes here will agree it sounds absolutely nothing like me!


"Gemini is the third sign of the zodiac and among its key psychological influences over life there are the following: intellectual activities, humanism, and abhorrence of violence, constant doubt of all mental concepts, hesitancy and academic interest.

People whose ascending sign is Gemini usually appear as elegant, slender, expressive, and with very humane facial expressions. They are individuals with some literary inclination, dexterous with manual labors and crafts, apt, able, witty, inventive and very curious and subtle.

A Gemini in the ascendant will always distinguish herself by her rather eloquent speech and writing, her much occupied daily life, and her perpetual lack of an ability to effect swift and determined decisions. As a Gemini, you should try to compensate your hesitancy with fast thinking.

Your disposition to life-events will be kind and generous (within bounds) but not always fortunate, because of too much vacillation in decision-making circumstances. You possess the capability of rising in life because of your own intellectual assets.

Your mind is open and generous, and your intellect self-sufficient; yet on many occasions, judgment will appear as "twisted". You should restrain useless discussion, strife, and unprofitable argument as they're your worst enemies.

To achieve success, you should stress your literary and scientific studies, give free hand to your brilliant intellect in warranted circumstances, and apply your diligent nature to writing, traveling, communications, and human analysis. In all these activities you are at your best.

Mercury, the ruler of your life, appears in the twelfth house. This is the house which represents the darker and uncounscious nature of people as well as sorrow. The presence of the ruler here inclines you to be extremely introverted and to conduct your life along lines that are private to the utmost degree.

Because of your Gemini life-traits, your versatile and clever mind becomes very interested in the occult, loving to engender and implement intellectual plans with haziness and ambiguity."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:50 AM

I'm just putting it down to the avoidance of cognitive dissonance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

...or dissonant cognition?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

(Paul Burke....I have tossed Occam's Razor into these discussions a few times in the past...the usual response goes along the lines of "Oh, that's just YOUR belief, and why should I accept it when it has no more basis than mine?" ...it's useless to explain why it's a form of a universal logical principle)

ummm...Little Hawk. The point is, I don't consider *life* to BE something that one "believes in". That is a category error. Life is a scientific, technical term for matter that is so constituted as to be able to replicate and reproduce.
   Do you consider lichen and bacteria and yeast spores to be 'concious'? If you do...(yes, I have read enough of your point of view to see why you might)...then we can't even talk. I do NOT believe, assume, postulate or accept that there is some 'life force' totally indepemdant FROM the material world that gives parts of the material world 'awareness'. Might be some, but I sure don't know how we could even theoretically be aware of it, so just shrug when it is put forth as fact.

So, for me, life is one form OF matter, and consciousness is an aspect of a very complex form of matter...a "critical mass" is one way to say it. I don't believe flowers are 'conscious' when they exhibit phototropism, and I don't attribute 'reflective self-concern' to beetles and sagebrush. I do have a 'reverence for life', (though I worry about the term being misinterpreted) insofar as I believe that humans should not use their complex self-aware status to set themselves above the rest of life and wantonly destroy other forms. It simply is not in their best interest. I do NOT think, however, that it makes any cosmic difference. The Universe simply doesn't 'care' whether this tiny little planet or its inhabitants survive for 100 years or a couple more billion. WE care, because we CAN care..."care" is a word that only makes sense for higher forms of life which do have 'consciousness'..(the way *I* view consciousness)...(I am not sure whether Chongo 'cares', but that is largely a matter of arbitrary drawing of lines ...I'll gladly include him for the sake of the discussion ☺)


...well, this has strayed from Astrology, but in a couple more paragraphs, I could make points about the relationship of beliefs and knowledge and why 'belief' in principles of astrology are related to beliefs about 'universal life force'..etc..but you see where it all leads....


and...*daylia*...if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

(hey,Gervase...I, too, seem to be a pretty good, inteligent, sterling fellow, according to my chart...I wonder why two smart guys like us didn't start earlier and make 'get rich from astrology' if it's so useful & important? Maybe it just ain't in the stars...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:15 AM

"Fish would come up with a fish God."

*big grin*..I actually have a cartoon with two goldfish in a bowl, with one saying."Ok, smarty, if there's no God, who changes the water?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM

Anthropomorphic, moi?

Reg is a fish.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM

"Cos I said so"?

Gervase, those are your words, not mine.

I know about astrology I know - and yes, I do mean know! :0) - through (in order of importance) a lifetime of ongoing, direct physical first-hand observation, experience and study (ie 'intellectual rigour').
Apply yourself to the study of it in like manner, and you will eventually know everything you want to know about it.

Oh yeah ... I remember. You ALREADY know everything there is to know about it via your own ignorance, inexperience, preconceptions, biases and carefully selected scholarly peer reviews. Hmmm ... this is probably how every pothole already knows it all about everything there is to know.

Hey, maybe I'll write my thesis on pothole psychology, just for fun! You folk would make the most excellent of subjects, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

.if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

Those are your words, Bill, and yup the rest of your words sounded a bit pained, so I took 'em at face value.

Don't like them now? You could always eat 'em then .... ;-)

The only thing I have spent on this thread is way too much time -- but that's becaues it's been so COOOOOOLD here for the last few days I've been housebound mostly. Can't thing of a thing I've 'invested' here though. I'm not here for the 'returns.

Are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

I can see I may regret that 'pothole' metaphor.

ok, eating a few words won't hurt my diet much...I guess I need to learn to carefully avoid any hint of ambiguity in certain situations. I hope Bill Gates doesn't read this and sue me for accusing HIM of 'messing with my life'...he's got lawyers and technicians that might be able to interfere with my............fffffzzzzzzzzzttttttttt..hey, no!....zzzzzzaaaappppppppp.... wait...I didn't mean it!

∞~~~~~~~~~~~~~~glllarg............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

I consider everything to be conscious, Bill...even atoms. But not everything is capable of expressing that consciousness in a way that is clearly recognizable. A plant, for example, cannot speak audibly. It can move, but only so slowly (and in such a limited way) that we don't see it, except when we use time-lapse film and speed it up. Thus, a plant is not capable of expressing its consciousness in a way that is immediately recognizable to a human being...but...they do react to things in an intelligent manner.

I consider atoms to be alive. All atoms.

That life is what I call "God" (if I want to), and that life never ends, it just keeps changing from various forms into various other forms. I think it's intelligent and aware, not accidental, and I think it is a single unity expressing itself as uncountable numbers of individual and apparently separate forms, right down to the atomic level.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

[too late, Mr Bill D. You have gone too far]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I wonder what Daylia think science is?? Does she think it is simply an area like astrology which uses its own arbitrary rules to think round in circles and has no relevance to anything else?

Well science is simply someone saying: If X is true what would we logically expect to follow from this (Y)? Here is a test which would determine if Y is in fact the case. If Y is not the case, then this undermines the theory of X. How can anyone argue that this has no relevance to any other discipline? One can argue about whether the logic determining the experiment is correct, or whether the experiment is a true test of Y, but not about whether science is relevant or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

TIA, do your own research. Or get your co-workers to do it for you. The snide comments directed at me and at astrology here - from you, and the other resident potholes - have been very entertaining. It's wonderful to watch a bunch of intelligent sounding ignoramuses attempt to throw mud at a target they know nothing about.

And all good things must come to an end .... and the time is now (the walrus said).

THe meaning of this will be revealed to all potholes in due course. And .. *gasp* yes! Even without the help of astrology!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

The mutual contempt and sheer dislike creeping through the cracks everywhere on this thread could strip the scales right off a komodo dragon lizard....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Just for the record, I feel no dislike or contempt for anyone on this thread. I merely find their logic hard to fathom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

"you see only what you want to see"
There's the pot calling the kettle black!

"As far as I'm concerned, life is God."
There's a guy living in the Group Home across the street who is convinced that Ronald McDonald is god... I give him just as much creedance...

"Without any awareness there is no life."
So, the grass and the trees aren't alive?!?!
What a load....

" I don't give a frog's patootie"
So then get outa the tread....

" Have yourselves a star-studded day now,"
How's about you go back through this thread and try answering ANY of the questions put to you? Otherwise, go hug a rainbow...

" What I said is the truth."
You wouldn't know truth if it mounted your roughly from behind....

" I consider atoms to be alive."
What a crock.... When I was 5 I thought rocks were alive...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:51 PM

Ditto - though I have to admit that I find it hard sometimes not to feel contempt for those who fly in the face of reason and who argue from such tenuous positions.
But *daylia*, to repeat; is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible?
I would really like to see one.
In fact, show me one and I will change my cynical, sceptical view. Surely, with the benefit of your years of knowledge in the field, you can lay your hands on several...?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

Clinton, the living atoms in your body have been assigned a tedious, vicious, and thankless task, but they are doing it faithfully. Be glad of that.

I really enjoy your nasty attitude at times. I do. It's fun to read. Y'all come back soon, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

"a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible"
No such beast exists.... And well, Daylia here has shown she's incapable of answering ANYTHING that challenges her myopic little fantasy-world view... So don't hold your breath....

"the living atoms in your body"
Again... a load of horseshit LH.... You sound like you need to have your meds adjusted...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM

Ya don't say...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

You're disappointing, Little Hawk, why do you stop at the atoms? Electrons, neutrinos, quarks are miffed by your atomism.
Look, even the physicists admit life at subatomar level, why else would they sometimes use the expression "the particle zoo".

Wolfgang (utterly dayliuded)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

*escaping from from Micro$oft Purgatory long enough to giggle at Wolfgang's control of cross-language turn of phrase*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me write, and sent it anyway.

This thread has really become depressing. . Mercury must be in retrograde.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

"Mercury must be in retrograde."

It has it's ups and downs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM

Good point, Wolfgang. ;-D You are quite right about that. Yes, one can go smaller than the atomic level in that analogy.

Hey, Clinton, don't let me disturb you with things that don't enter your narrow range of perception. Look, if it wasn't for the joy of being "right" ALL the time, why else would you even bother posting on this thread? You wouldn't. It's not about anything that really interests you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:25 PM

My perception isn't narrow...

And it's good to be open minded... just not to the point where your brain falls out...

I'm interested in hearing Daylia answer ANY of the questions that have been put to her, in something other than New Agey double-talk and mystic-babble...

You could try thining it out while yer at it too LH.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM

"I consider atoms to be alive"

If I came here and said "I can fly" you'd certainly expect some proof would't you?

That you consider something to be true doesn't MAKE it so....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

When I started studies on Physics, I did have some elementary questions unanswered because I was simply an ignorant but curious student. You know what ? Teachers and books answered my questions on those subjects that were investigated, and told me how they did the research. When something remained unanswered for science, teachers and books challenged me to become a scientist and find the truth. So I trusted in science.

Nobody answered my most elementary, stupid questions on astrology, as far as I dedicated some weeks to that subject. Each time I ask for an explanation (to someone who says that he/she KNOWS)I am treated as an ignorant and recommended to dedicate my life to the study of astrology before opening my mouth.

That´s why I consider it a superstition that makes many people feel comfortable on how they behave. And a big business like many other superstitions.

Un abrazo from Buenos Aires
Andrés


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM

No, Clinton, I would assume you meant in an airplane or with a hang glider or something. I don't have such a low regard for your intelligence or sanity that I would imagine you to be under the illusion that you can flap your arms and become airborne.

I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology. It is unrealistic of anyone to expect daylia to prove it to them. She can't. She can only give a subjective opinion based on her own personal experience.

There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove. Always have been, always will be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

" I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology."
That's because it isn't a science...
And the onus isn't on 'disproving'... it's on proving....

"There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove."
Nothing unreal exists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM

LH is right. Science cannot "disprove" astrology (in fact, it cannot disprove anything). However, the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested. Apparently even proposing such testing is considered snide, and the work of ignoramuses. I apologize to anyone whose feelings have been hurt. I hope you will see that some people search for knowledge using the method of science, and it is not meant as a personal attack. Hmmm. Perhaps it would be best to stick to answering only the rhetorical thread title questions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM

"the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested"

And every time they are tested, they only succeed at the same rate one would expect from random chance...

But still people try to claim that it 'works'... when there's good evidence that shows, in fact that it does not....

again, the word for that is 'delusion'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:05 PM

I agree. Nothing unreal exists (except as a thoughtform...an unreal thoughtform can exist, and can affect people profoundly...but that's another whole discussion).

My definition of "life" is just more wide-ranging than yours, Clinton. I am not describing something that "doesn't exist" when I say that atoms and subatomic particles are alive. I'm talking about something that does exist, that has been observed, that behaves in an energetic fashion, forms coherent associations with other such particles, transmits and receives energy, and as far as I am concerned is alive.

Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing.

There is no burden of proof on anyone, unless they say that you MUST believe as they do or you're wrong or crazy. I don't say that. It's perfectly all right with me if people don't believe atoms are alive or if they don't believe in astrology. What difference could it possibly make? I'm not so all right with them ceaselessly attacking and ridiculing anyone who DOES believe things they don't, though. I mean, what business is it of theirs to browbeat everyone else into their particular view of what is real and what isn't?

That's why I say that the real reason you show up on all these threads about the paranormal or the unusual is not because you're interested in the subject matter, but because you relish the thrill, the ego boost of being "right" at someone else's expense and making fun of them and telling them they're an idiot. You love it. Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer, and a slew of other things like that you find ridiculous and unreal you wouldn't have your daily thrill of coming here to get your jollies by verbally pissing on people who happen to believe something you don't believe.

You'd get bored and probably go somewhere else where you could find someone else to pick on.

However, there will always be such people here, so I'm sure you'll stay. It's a symbiotic relationship. You are the kicker, they are the kick-ee. You're a lot like a born-again Christian. You just WILL not leave people alone if their beliefs don't match yours.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM

"and as far as I am concerned is alive"
That and a buck 50 will get you a small cup of cruddy coffee....

"Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing."
And because you do proves what? Nothing... Again... you're caught up in your quasi-mystical-blabber-speak...

"Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer"
This world would be a much better, more intelligent place..... I'll wager we'd even smell better...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

But, Clinton, I am not trying to prove anything. I am merely talking about something I find interesting. You're the one who is trying to PROVE something all the time. (And Bill too, although he's much nicer about it.) You're trying to prove that you are right and other people who don't see it your way are wrong.

I wager that without THAT nasty little ego habit causing trouble and wars all over the place the world would be better off too.

You're the one who demands proof, you're the one who acts like he has it. But you don't. You're just another big loud opinion. Your knowledge, like that of all people, is limited and fragmentary, and is badly compromised by your culture, your background, and your tendency to ignore or discredit whatever you don't already accept.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

Clinton is very hostile, which is what I don't care for. There's no justification for it--he seems to feel that he is entitled to be rude simply because he believes that he is right. Bad form.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM

You wanna see hostile? Fuck off M.Ted.... If ya don't like the thread, you know where the egress is....

"I am not trying to prove anything."
Then why do you cry so loudly when someone dismisses your mystical blatherflop?

And well, what you 'know' about me ain't worth a hill of beans...   You don't KNOW but what I chose to show you here.... So once again, your 'voice' is muffled by your buttocks....   But that's o.k.. I'm accustomed to you sounding like that....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM

LOL! By God, it would be a treat living downstairs from you. Then I could know so much more about you...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:44 PM

**Bill Gates lawyers decided they'd get in trouble for holding me.....**

(Clinton...where do I send the 50¢ I promised for making ME look like a relatively good guy?)

LH...I hope you don't really believe I am trying to prove anything.

one....more...time... Almost my ONLY claims are about bad and irrelevant arguments and specious resoning. Note my first post in this thread:
""...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest."

I respond to both implicit & explicit claims. When someone states "...known to be associated with..." they are implying that any reasonable person 'ought' to see that association and thus grasp the 'truth' that those wise folks have so laboriously worked out for centuries!

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows" and that we who doubt are some combination of ignorant, inexperienced, biased and snide.

You, LH, regularly make other statements that read LIKE claims...then sometimes sidestep and say "no one has to agree if they don't want to"....thanks a bunch...*wry grin*...We snide & biased folks with our blind spots and tricky rhetoric sure appreciate the release from THAT obligation.

Really and truly....all I am doing....my ONLY wish...is to see the argument/debate carried on without dubious claims, bad reasoning and character assassination when disagreement results. As I posted in response to your prodding questions, I am concerned that alternate opinions appear when dubious claims are made...and that it is clear WHERE the crux of the debate lies. (This is almost always the hardest point to make!)

I repeat, I don't expect to have someone who is up to here in these beliefs change their minds because I poke at their methods and defense. But if I can inject ANY note of concern for what really passes for validation and even statistical support for a claim, then I will be, if not satisfied, at least relieved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM

So, you are debating mainly for the enjoyment of examining the subject with a critical eye and engaging in the gentlemanly process of rational debate itself, Bill...while Clinton does it mainly because he loves to verbally shit on people and flex his BIIIG muscles online! ;-D Yup, he does make you look like a good guy (and you are a good guy). You should've paid him at least five bucks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:24 PM

He said he'd do it free...the 50¢ was my idea. ☺

I dunno...we all have our styles and notions of how blunt we need to be to make a point. CH has never been shy or deceptive, and he uses his own name ...and seldom swears or starts a fight...*shrug*

   But he does tend (you listnin', Clinton?) to cause opponents to bristle and harden their stance and lash out at ANY perceived insult, rather than quietly explain. It kinda tilts the discussion into a flame war at times.

Free expression can be wielded like a bludgeon....

"You can catch more flies with honey..." etc..

(I know, Clinton, you prefer to swat ALL the flies....but you are just makin' em irritable)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows"

Only because it's true, Bill.

I know what I know (which is only a teensy weensy smidgeon of what there is to know) about astrology through direct first-hand physical observation, experience, and personal 'intellectual rigour' (ie study).

To answer the rhetorical troll of a question that started this thread, no. I do not 'believe in' astrology. (Or anything else, in fact).

Kinda feels strange to be on the same team after all, eh?    :-D

Oh, and about them potholes ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Just wanted to add that what you don't choose to know about astrology can't hurt you. And what you do choose to know about it can be helpful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 PM

at least it wasn't a donkey...(elephant is Republican mascot...blocking the path of progress is normal for them.)

I 'spose you can guess that I'd suggest that what you 'know' is your subjective experience, rather than the source of it or that it represents 'fact'.....

just a suggestion...






I can do WHAT with my suggestion?...Madame!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:48 PM

Everything is our subjective experience, Bill. But some things we can be surer of than others. The things that the vast majority of us agree on, for instance....

Still, we might be wrong even then, sometimes.

The vast majority have agreed to all kinds of incorrect things in the past and been backed up by the official authorities of their time. I suspect the same thing is happening now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM

Mercury in Retrograde Clinton........a bit of astrology might help you about now--


"While people speak of  Mercury Retrograde periods that screw up computers and television sets, today's astrologers believe the mishaps happen in more personal realms (Uranus is the planet that rules television and computers).  Mercury rules communication, but more  informal communications, like writing, speaking, short shopping sprees and other erranding endeavors.  So, while Mercury is Retrograde, don't give that party,  be extra aware of what you say and what you interpret when chatting with or writing to friends, cut back on errands, expect that the check will be in the mail longer than usual.   Since the car is usually used for shopping and errands,  don't be surprised if the battery wire loosens or the fan belt snaps just when you have rush out for that one ingredient you forgot to buy.

The good things to do when Mercury is Retrograde: meditate, contemplate, edit the book/poem/song/essay you've been writing, clean house, talk to your pet, listen to music, paint, catch up on sleep! "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM

I 'spose you can guess that I'd suggest that what you 'know' is your subjective experience, rather than the source of it or that it represents 'fact'.....

THere are many, many things that can only be known through subjective experience. I suppose it could be argued that nothing can be known except through subjective experience. That's what you get for being a human being.

Consciousness is still very much a mystery -- an area science (ie neurobiologists) is only just beginning to investigate. And with great difficulty; as you say, as the subjective experience of consciousness is, by it's very nature, quite outside the realm of scientific empirical peer-approvable 'fact'.

But as to 'knowing' the 'source'??   HA!!! I highly, HIGHLY doubt we'd be having this conversation if I 'knew' that particular 'source'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

the subjective experience of consciousness is, by it's very nature, quite outside the realm of scientific empirical peer-approvable 'fact'.

That's not really true -- it's way too general.

I think.

Or no ...

....flippin Mercury retrograde!!! Gonna give it up and go write in my journal instead. My oh so UNpeer-reviewed journal   

*whew*

thanks for that, MTed


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:27 PM

in retrospect, things are Mercurial around here.

night, all...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:01 AM

Last night I had a chat with the Fairies that live at the bottom of my garden, and even they don't believe that Astrology is real.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:34 AM

THe meaning of this will be revealed to all potholes in due course. And .. *gasp* yes! Even without the help of astrology!
Hey, you're not related to those odd coves who used to stand on street corners with sandwich boards announcing the immenent end of the world and that eating meat was murder, are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:14 AM

I believe that aeroplanes are kangaroos. I just happen to be using different definitions of both words than the entire rest of the the speakers of the English language. I am not wrong, I just define things differently to you all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:48 AM

Time for some contemplation and quiet thought till around the 27th.

Escamillo, if you'd like to post me some simple (or not so simple )questions)(maybe after the 27th),I'll see what I can do (after the 27th).

I would like to add my voice regretting the animosity and insult.

There is also PLENTY BESIDES.(Don't know how to do italics and those other typo variants others do, and that's another thread.)

While counting myself an astrologer, I like the joke (steady chaps, please don't chase every rabbit in sight !!) about the meeting of the East Kent Spiritualist meeting next tuesday having to be cancelled owing to unforeseen circumstances.

"A certain awkwardness marks the use of borrowed thoughts but as soon as we learn what to do with them, they become our own." (Emerson)

Best wishes from an Ambrose Bierce fan


Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:17 AM

Gervase, no, the description you gave does not fit any of my relatives. Highly inaccurate! What kinda birth data did you use for that one, anyway? ;-)

Seriously though, we don't have street-corner messiahs of any genre in my neck of the woods. You have to make an excursion to big bad Toronto - and even there, they're a mighty rare breed.

BTW what's a "cove"? THe only coves we have around here are the ones that harbour boats....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM

From the OED:
Cove, n.2
slang (orig. Thieves' cant)

(kv) Forms: 6-7 cofe, 6 coff, 7- cove. [The early variant cofe has suggested that this is identical with Sc. COFE n., 'chapman, pedlar', the sense having undergone the same transition as in CHAP, which is now nearly equivalent in meaning, save that cove belongs to a lower and more slangy stratum of speech. But the phonetic change of f to v, at so late a date, is not usual; and the origin of the word still remains obscure. Cf. also CO n.2]

A fellow, 'chap', 'customer'; sometimes = BOSS n.6 (see quots. 1812, 1891).
Frequent in the 20th century in Austral. sources.

1567 HARMAN Caveat 84 A gentry cofe, a noble or gentleman. Ibid. 86 What, stowe you, bene cofe..What, holde your peace, good fellowe.
1609 DEKKER Lanth. & Candle Lt. Wks. 1884-5 III. 196 The word Coue, or Cofe, or Cuffin, signifies a Man, a Fellow, &c...a good fellow is a Bene Cofe.
1621 B. JONSON Gipsies Metamorph. Wks. (Rtldg.) 619/2 There's a gentry cove here, Is the top of the shire. a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Cofe, c. as Cove.
1737 in Logan Pedlar's Pack (1869) 147 Now my Kinchin Cove is gone.
1812 J. H. VAUX Flash Dict. s.v., The master of a house or shop is called the Cove..; when joined to particular words, as a cross-cove, a flash-cove, a leary-cove, &c., it simply implies a man of those several descriptions.
1838 DICKENS O. Twist x, That old cove at the book-stall.
1891 N. GOULD Doub. Event 115, I am not in the habit of being called a cove.
1891 LENTZNER Australian Word-bk., Cove, master or overseer of an Australian station.
1911 C. E. W. BEAN 'Dreadnought' of Darling xxxiii. 288 Recollec' that cove with a red beard.
1916 Anzac Book 65 Then a corporal called and wanted to know..when would the rubber boots be ready for the coves in the trenches?
1916 J. B. COOPER Coo-oo-ee vii. 84 'He's one of those smart coves,' said Sam.
1944 F. CLUNE Red Heart 67 'Must be a balmy cove,' whispered one of the hangers-on as he tapped his forehead.
1966 'J. HACKSTON' Father clears Out 190 The young coves round about combed their hair back with soap to keep it in position.
1969 Advertiser (Adelaide) 12 May 5/4 You Aussie coves are just a bunch of drongoes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Escamillo, if you'd like to post me some simple (or not so simple )questions)(maybe after the 27th),I'll see what I can do (after the 27th).

Good plan, Ivor. Ditto for me then. ANd I too regret the animosity here, so please .... *attention* all potholes! Let me clarify the worst of my horrid insults above ... You are obviously stupid enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around in spite of your admitted ignorance and obvious prejudices re this subject --- BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are ignormases in all areas of life.

And if I appear to be ignoring certain of your posts till the 27th (ie those of the troll-and-bait genre) well, that's only because I am.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:42 AM

PS thanks for explaining the "cove" bit, Gervase. I thought maybe it meant members of a coven -- (and no, that description does not fit me either)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

You respond to good will and conciliation with more animosity and name-calling. You are a hole, but not of the pot variety.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM

I checked out what Wikipedia has to say on the subject. As I noted earlier, the interpretation of the characteristics of a planet or constellation depends on the culture in which the type of astrology developed (why Babylonian, why not Mayan?). More on the history...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
"Astrological interpretation is dependent on the particular culture's prevailing mythology. Most classicists think that Western astrology is dependent on Greek mythology. But the Greeks never claimed to have their own mythology. The Greeks claimed that half of their mythology was borrowed from the Egyptians and the other half borrowed from the Hebrew. But where did the myths of the Egyptians and Hebrew come from? The upper Nile River - Ethiopia. (See "Black Athena", Rutgers University Press) The research of the Gauquelin's, which resulted into Neo-Astrology, has modified, updated, but mainly reinforced the Ethiopian/Greek/Roman word association of behavioral characteristics with the particular planets."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

From Websters:

"know: to perceive directly
: to have direct cognition of
: to have understanding of (importance of knowing oneself)
: to recognize the nature of
: DISCERN : to be acquainted or familiar with
: to have experience of
: to be aware of the truth OR [heads up! this is an very important OR!] factuality of
: to have a practical understanding of
: to have sexual intercourse with (archaic)
: to have knowledge
: to be or become cogniznat -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

So just to clarify for the pedants here, when I say "I know" (not 'believe' but 'know') the little I do about about astrology, I mean ALL of the above -- except the last one AND the archaic definition (although I confess I've spent quite a bit of quality time between the sheets with my astrology books over the years, in the soft sweet glow of my reading lamp ....   :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

TIA, i repeat:

You -- and yes, very specifically you -- are obviously dumb enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around, even in the face of your obvious ignorance and glaring prejudices re this subject!

BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are an ignoramus in all areas of life, of course.

I will be ignoring all of your posts here from now on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM

Alice, say 10 different people were shown a picture of you and asked about their impressions.
The first might say "She's a happy person -- I can see it in her eyes". The second "She has wonderful [fill in colour] eyes." The third "She looks a bit stressed. Does she get enough sleep?" The fourth "She looks about 40." The fifth "Nah, more like 30". THe sixth "Wow, look at those muscles! She must be an athlete!" The seventh "I bet she's a scholar. Look at that all those bookcases in the background". And on and on and on ....

Now, does this mean they are all wrong? Or all right? Or maybe even that you really don't exist at all, because everyone sees something a little different???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 11:11 AM

attention* all potholes! Let me clarify the worst of my horrid insults above ... You are obviously stupid enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around in spite of your admitted ignorance and obvious prejudices re this subject --- BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are ignormases in all areas of life.

ummmm....I am not an 'expert' with years of study behind me on how to bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either, but I don't think voicing a cautionary opinion on the practice exactly makes me stupid. Not knowing favorite recipes doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the dangers.

What I DO have is years of experience and college classes in rules of debate and logical discussion and how differences of opinion should be processed....those are the items I have been questioning...NOT as I have said 3-4 times now, not astrology per se.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM

... bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either

Bill, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It's just another example of slanted thinking; more evidence of your personal inexperience, ignorance and preconceptions (prejudices) re astrology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

Enough of the ignoramus-calling, woman!
FYI I have studied astrology insofaras when I was a teenager I was sufficiently interested in esoterica to read several books on the subject and to draw up charts for my own family. The more I read, unfortunately, the more sceptical I became - particularly when looking at the huge gulfs between tradition western natal astrology and Vedic astrology. The scepticism deepened when I became more interested in astronomy than astrology and realised that the zodiac should have around 20 signs rather than 12 (when was the last time you heard someone say they were a typical Ophiucus or Scutum?) and that precession had thrown a spanner in the works. Add to that the fact that every astronomer I came across thought astrology was crap (and they still do!).
I've always had a scientific bent (Fnarr!) and really did seek evidence everywhere for the supposed 'truths' of astrology. Finding none (though this was in the days long before the internet, when all I had was my local public library) I have to say that I eventually junked it along with most of the rest of the esoterica and pseudoscience. I've still got a lovely set of tarot cards, a mistletoe wand and a few other odds and sods, but more for the aesthetics of them as artefacts than anything else.
So it's probably wrong to say I'm ignorant of astrology. I did give it a go, but decided that it was bollocks. And I'm still waiting for a proper test of astrology which shows it to be kosher; the way that tests like this all seem to show it to be bollocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

So, you're NOT going to answer ANY of the questions put to you in this thread Daylia? You're just going to sit there with your fingers jammed into your easy singing, "LALALAICAN'THEARYOULALALA"....

That's about what I'd expect from someone as blinkered as you....

You and LH must get on like a house on fire....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

Hi, daylia, your example of 10 different people having 10 different opinions when they each look at a picture of someone is an excellent example.
It is clear that 10 different people interepreting a horoscope have 10 different opinions (10 different cultures having 10 differing myths about the planets and constellations). If that does not make it clear to you what people have been trying to say in this thread, then I don't know how to get the point across so you can understand it. I'm not trying to annoy or belittle you or your point of view. I'm just offering some facts on the subject. I, like many others, seriously studied astrology when I was younger and now see it as a pseudoscience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

Gervase, as I've explained somewhere before on this thread, I am just as skeptical of articles by "skeptics" as I am of articles by "psychics". Slant, bias, prejudice, and partial (if not total) ignorance of the subject at hand are so common in such articles that they are of very little or no practical value / interest to me.

Re cultural differences in astrology (Vedic vs Western etc), please consider my post 10:10 above. I don't want to waste bandwidth cutting and pasting it here.

In any case, I'm glad to hear you do know something of astrology, and those are interesting thoughts re the smaller planets etc -- but for everything, there is a season. It's apparent that somehow, conditions are not ideal for fruitful communication, discourse or debate right now. In light of that, I'll ttyl.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM

The point Bill D was trying to make, as you should very well know, is that you don't have to be an expert to be able to make worthwhile judgements on something.

I can't juggle. Does that mean I can't say juggling chainsaws and flaming torches is not easy or safe?

None of us skeptics have been saying " No, you're wrong, Aries rising means X not Y", we leave that to the experts. We have been trying to discuss the whole question of if it can be verified my outsiders.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

A pseudoscience? Well that's exactly what it is, Alice.

Re individual and/or cultural differences in perception -- isn't this just the very nature of consciousness, of human nature, of life itself?

No one approach or system of thought - including western science - can possibly explain everything there is to know about this (or any other) subject. Least of all explain it in a way that everyone else on the planet can understand! That's why there are many different "approaches".

Does this make them all hooey? I think not.

I really like what Little Hawk said above.

.... a person can gain more far wisdom from self-observation than from debating endlessly with others about the things they believe or don't believe. Such debates usually change nothing, except that they harden people in their established positions and cause them to dislike one another.

So, once again, ttyl.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:53 PM

"Keep them doagies rollin', Rawhide...."

This thread attracts Clinton Hammond like roadkill attracting crows and vultures, so by all means keep it going. No sense in depriving him of his fun, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM

PS -- If you want to conceal your personal prejudices better, or even to stop your writing here from being discredited by slant, simply use neutral "metaphors" for the subject at hand, instead of all the telltale negative, inflammatory ones.

Comparing the subject under discussion with juggling chainsaws, baking a cake with illegal drugs, blood sacrifices and tinfoil hats etc etc    ad nauseum   are such obvious examples of slanted, prejudiced writing and thinking (possibly even good ole hatred and ignorance), I don't see how you let yourselves get away with it!

Such choice of phrase at best discredits, at worst nullifies the rest of your argument(s).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:11 PM

Gervase--

The test that you linked to above, at least at first review, seems not to have been designed very well.
The scientist used the astrologers feedback to structure the research, which seems fair enough at the face of it, but the fact is that astrologers, for the most part, have little to know idea how to structure a valid scientific test for anything, even astrology--they are not scientists--

A variety of practical problems skewed the selection of subjects, so that all had certain similar, and therefore confusing, elements in their charts. Another serious problem was that there was no overarching qualification for the astrologers, they were self-selected, and there was no attempt to discern the competency of the astrologers --or even to determine what the criteria for a competent vs an incompetent astrologer would be.

Mind you, I only read over the description briefly--but it didn't seem like a very good study.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM

"at best discredits, at worst nullifies the rest of your argument"

So then it's still better then yours, which has been nullified almost from the get-go....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:24 PM

thanks, Gervase, for the excellent links to serious studies by experts, and Bunnahabhain for seeing my point about how one ought to view ANY set of claims.

There seems to be a determination to have a favorite answer here, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. I now repost something I have used several times about such situations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I submit that much of the claims defending astrology and the credentials necessary to evaluate astrology are involved in a very similar process of 'distorting' to what Dr. Zook used on Hagar....only this time words and definitions and concepts are being distorted so that the desired answer still fits.

I am sorry if those who are doing this distorting don't 'get it. We don't use this careful nit-picking all day to talk with people, and realizing when precise logic needs to be employed is not always obvious if one has not actually studied the rules of discourse & debate.
(And no, it is NOT the same as "not having studied astrology"! Is is not necessary to spend years learning all the details of a complex system of observation and interpretation in order to comment on whether the system itself is based on dubuious principles!)
Flamenco Ted can create an entire religion about his conversations with the fairies in his garden, but neither you nor I need to take it to his level to realize there are problems. (Besides, the fairies in MY garden say that his are all wet!)

(In case anyone is wondering, I still do NOT expect this to change any minds...the **need** to keep believing something that has been used for years is too deeply embedded and emotional)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM

I know slant when I see it, Bill. Why would a fellow as versed in logic as yourself resort to such obvious and useless tactics? Or find any value in articles by "skeptics"? Or "scientific studies" (???) attempted on a subject which, as we've seen over and over on this thread, lies beyond the scope of Western science?

Trying to learn the truth about astrology via current Western scientific methodology and techniques is rather like trying to weigh yourself with a barometer - a misconceived and futile endeavour.

All the best with that, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM

"lies beyond the scope of Western science"

Except that it doesn't....

Just because you want to THINK it does, doesn't make it the case.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:10 PM

no, I'm sorry, you do not know 'slant' by simply skimming over my words and deciding that disagreement = bias. That is a comment, like several others, about ME, not about my arguments. I have made a serious error by continuing all this beyond the earlier exchanges. I now withdraw and will allow what I have said to be enough for any passers-by to judge me by.

take care..*smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

From Websters

Slant ...

: a peculiar or personal point of view or position, attitude or opinion ...

: to interpret or present in line with a special interest : ANGLE : (stories slanted toward youth); especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify"


This is slant, Bill:

"mmmm....I am not an 'expert' with years of study behind me on how to bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either, but I don't think voicing a cautionary opinion on the practice exactly makes me stupid. Not knowing favorite recipes doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the dangers."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:00 PM

Peter Niehenke (one of the best known German astrologers) in Meridian (3/1984), an astrological journal, arguing against those astrologers who think that statistical methods cannot be used to test astrology and that present science has nothing to say about it:

(my translation) Astrologers are doing statistics today and from the very start at least from that moment when they formulated the first astrological rule. Even we assume that this rule has come from 'inspiration' and not from observation: In the moment it is formulated as a rule one makes directly or indirectly a statement about frequencies. For one claims that a certain trait is more often appearing with a certain constellation thatn with others - and this way one has arrived at statistics...
One of the main objections to the use of statistical methods in astrology is over and over again the claim that it is not possible to separate the horoscope into parts and that one cannot study single constellations for this way the wholeness would be lost. This argumentation confuses two things. It is actually correct that I can never state something from a single constellation about the whole horoscope and the person...but this does not mean that one cannot study single constellations in group comparisons.


He goes on telling the example that alcohol is one factor in car accidents. This factor alone can never explain a single accident for there are many many other factors like speed, illumination, state of car, wet streets... that also play a role. So in a single case we can never be completely sure which factor or combination of factors have led to the accident. But in a groups studies with a large number of cases, the role of alcohol can be found out.

What daylia misses in her attempt to argue against using statistical methods to test astrology is that in this case the data base on which the scientists study astrology is in most cases exactly the same as the one the astrologers use: Frequencies of cooccurence of traits and constellations. If there were no pattern where from could come something like 'experience', on what basis are astrological books founded? 'Experience' ist based on seeing patterns (existing or not) and patterns can be translated into statements about frequencies. These can be tested fairly easily as TIA has said.

Niehenke, BTW, has done this and the astrological hypotheses have found no support. He has found no more significant correlations than could be expected by chance. He still does astrology in combination with psychotherapy for he finds that his clients like it and he and them have a 'feeling of evidence'.

(If astrology is done this way it may have its uses like many other methods. If a psychoanalysist talks about his client's dreams, if a cheirologist analyses hand lines or if tea leaves are read, one component that may actually be helpful is to ask the client to contribute own interpretations to the (more or less random in my eyes) pattern. Talking about one's life and trying to interpret patterns as such can be helpful in many personal crises.)

But to argue that 'experience' validates a belief and at the same time dismiss counting methods of cooccurences is intellectually dishonest. However, most astrologers are in that field for another reason. Astrologer Niehenke once more: Astrology becomes a kind of religion, a question of faith. But why not...A world in which astrology is true is a more beautiful world than a world in which astrology does not exist. That explains nicely the very emotional reaction of daylia to any alternative point of view. It is not a simple question of correct or false testable statements for her, it is a question reaching far more deep.

A scientist approaches the field very differently. It would be extremely stupid of him/her to start with the assumption that there are no patterns different from chance. Even if most of the astrological theories make no sense from a scientific point of view there could be interesting truths in astrological statements. It is simply an empirical question. (And by the way, each real scientist would hope to find a corroboration for an astrological statement for that would be much more fun and interesting than boringly 'proving' the null hypothesis)

Why would that be more interesting? The sun, obviously has a tremendous impact on humans via warmth, growth and light. The moon has a tremendous impact on some life forms via tides. It could have an influence via changes in illumination level with its phases. It even (remotely) could have a minuscule influence by its gravitation.

As for the planets, there is no serious causal influence, but nevertheless they could be correlated better than chance by spurious correlations with other more mundane influences. Birth season could play a role both for biological and for nurture reasons. The intrauterine environment could change with the season (different food), the first experiences can vary with seaons (learning to walk naked on the grass feels a bit different from learning it in lots of clothes and on snow). Different social classes have different birth frequency maxima (in Germany, the 9 months past carnival maximum is restricted to the lower classes of catholics). There is also the rumour (I've never found real data) that generals tend to be born in August and September for the simple reason that their fathers have been in the army as well and got a Christmas leave. Many interesting theories could be thought of to explain correlations of traits (or disorders) with season of birth. Knowing these things would be helpful in medicine and many other areas.

Such correlations can be found and have been found but they are not in accordance with astrological theories. The field has been tested very often but with no convincing results or with results with extremely low statistical power.

So the 'experience' and the 'feeling of evidence' must come from somewhere else: illusory correlation, Barnum effect, cold reading, retrofitting of patterns are some of the more promising interpretations where from such feelings can come in the absence of any real correlation.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:19 AM

Thanks Wolfgang, for an excellent work, it is very appreciated.

Daylia, Autolycus, I prefer to discuss this here rather than dealing with personal messages (however I´ll be glad to receive your PMs whenever you like)

I quote my first elementary question:
"If the birth of a child (why not the conception?) is a physical fact, and some kind of energy determines his/her initial conditions in function of his/her moment and place of birth, HOW SHOULD THAT ENERGY BE MEASURED? Is it gravitational (like the body of the mother) ? Magnetic? Light-related ? Sub-atomic particles ? Cosmic radiation ? "

I would add a simple observation: any kind of light-related or cosmic radiation coming from the sun or from stars beyond the sun to a point on Earth that is eventually on the OPPOSITE side of the Sun, is blocked by the mass of the Earth, and in fact the light and radiation reaching that point comes from the night sky. The only radiations passing across the Earth from the sunny side, are the Neutrinos, sub-atomic particles so small that they pass through the inter-atomic spaces of rocks and metals of the whole Earth and through ourselves from our feet. Of course 99% of the stars which could influence us are not in the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth's orbit) but that is another question.

Regarding things "beyond the scope of Western science" : Today, Western science is "world-wide" science. The Japanese and Chinese and all oriental scientific institutions do not show any difference in methodology. Chinese architects may design houses considering some kind of harmony with esoteric entities, but this is part of their culture and by no means are significant in terms of structure of the houses. There are dozens of oriental medical associations which publish thousands of research papers and no one follows methods of ancient Chinese medicine nor deals with it, while the Western hemisphere spends hundreds of millions per year in alternative supposedly oriental treatments.

Un abrazo
Andrés
(Analyst/Programmer, semi-professional tenor, father and grandpa)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:49 AM

Daylia, I find your attitude to the questions and challenges put forward in this thread very enlightening. You have a very strong tendency to view anything which contradicts your beliefs as irrelevant and anything which confirms them as very important. If this is your attitude within astrology too, it explains to me why you find it so convincing. You probably see only the bits of your horoscope which agree with your assessment of your personality and quickly forget the major parts that don't, or find some way to make them irrelevant. I believe this is called the confirmational bias and it seems very strong in you.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM

Bagpuss, there's been absolutely nothing posted on this thread yet that 'proves' or 'disproves' a single thing I've said, scientifically or otherwise.

And you're right -- I have as much use for articles by skeptics - and by scientists on this particular subject, for all the excellent reasons noted above -- as I do for the slanted misinformation posted here by the Mudcat pothole gallery.

Notta smidgeon.

Wolfgang, that article looks interesting although I've only given it a preliminary glance. It does not appear to be one of those biased skeptical time-wasters though -- if that's correct, thanks for posting it and I'll go over it in more detail later.

And wow, look how quickly our resident philosopher professor ducked out of here, as soon as I called a spade a spade and demonstrated his use of slanted metaphor!

Should have done that a LONG time ago. It's one of his regular tactics when discussing things he knows nothing about. LOL!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM

For anyone that is interested (ie not Daylia) Here is an interesting article on hidden persuaders - the reasons why so many people will be convinced by things like astrology. And there are probably a lot more interesting articles on the website it came from: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/

I have always been very interested in powers of persuasion - the ways in which our biased ways of thinking can be used to convince us of something. I once had a psychology lecturer who used to do experiments in which he posed as a psychic when in fact he was using only the principles of cold reading. I saw a video of one of his "shows" with interviews with those in the audience that he "read". Everyone one of them was amazed by his accuracy and when presented with the truth, some of them refused to believe it, and claimed that the experimenter really did use a psychic gift, but that he just wasn't aware of it.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:16 AM

"Science deals with that aspect of reality and human experience that lends itself to a particular method of inquiry susceptible to empirical observation, quantification and measurement, repeatability, and intersubjective verification -- more than one person has to be able to say, "Yes, I saw the same thing. I got the same results." So legitimate scientific study is limited to the physical world, including the human body, astronomical bodies, measurable energy, and how structure work ...

Clearly, this paradigm does not and cannot exhaust all aspects of reality, in particular the nature of human existence. In addition to the objective world of matter, which science is masterful at exploring, there exists the subjective world of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and the values and spiritual aspirations based on them.

If we treat this realm as though it had no contitutive role in our understanding of reality, we lose the richness of our existence and our understanding cannot be comprehensive. Reality, including our own exictence, is so much more complex than objective scientific materialism allows..."

From "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Interesting too, what he has to say about his lifelong friendship and mutual intellectual exploration with physicist David Bohm, one of the many great thinkers and scientiest with whom he has studied extensively, and exchanged knowledge:

"David Bohm guided my understanding of the subtlest aspects of scientific thought, especially in physics, and exposed me to the scientific worldview at it's best ... In our conversations I felt the presence of a great scientific mind which was prepared to acknowledge the value of observations nad insights from other modes of knowledge than the objective scientific ..."


May all scientists, and all of mankind eventually benefit from these insights and understandings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:22 AM

If it wasn't for scientists the Dalai Lama wouldn't know what an atom was.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

ANd your point, Ted?

If it weren't for scientists NONE of us would know what an atom was.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM

So legitimate scientific study is limited to the physical world, including the human body, astronomical bodies, measurable energy, and how structure work ...

Clearly, this paradigm does not and cannot exhaust all aspects of reality, in particular the nature of human existence. In addition to the objective world of matter...there exists the subjective world of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and the values and spiritual aspirations based on them.


said daylia.

How do you distinguish "feelings, feelings, emotions, thoughts, and ... spiritual aspirations" which are valid from those that aren't? Why is your astrology different from David Icke's patent nonsense? He feels it to be true as strongly as you do.

You are quite wrong about science; if science has nothing to say about various aspects of human experience at the moment, that's not the same as saying it can't say anything in principle. And if there are areas in which it can't say anything in principle, you still have to show that any other approach can.

Why should anyone believe YOUR version of reality rather than someone else's? You must have some tests to distinguish between various models of reality; you've said that they don't involve statistics, what are they? Anything more than the massive egotism of saying "I feel it so it must be true"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

"version of reality" ia an oxymoron.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

Those are not my ideas, Paul. They are the Dalai Lama's, and they have absloutley nothing to with the attitudes you describe.

BTW, an individuals'(subjectively experienced) feelings and emotions are neither "valid" or "invalid". THey simply are what they are.

I have nothing of value to offer about David Icke. I've never read any his work, and so I have absolutely no personal experience or direct first-hand knowledge of his ideas to date. Nor do I allow myself to succumb to the foolishness of 'pothole psychology' -- therefore, I will not be tossing out any useless, uninformed, ego-and-bias-driven opinions about him either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

It is very interesting that you give the word "skeptic" such a negative meaning and assign the word "slanted" to others in the way you do. To also readily admit that astrology is a pseudoscience and still think it has validity is amazing. It reminds me of Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". One element of flawed methodology is to focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. Schools need to be teaching critical thinking more effectively.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM

Well, it's obvious that not many (if any) of the potholes here, including you, understands - or even wants to understand - a single thing I've said about skeptics, slant, bias, science, subjectivity vs objectivity, knowledge, belief, astrology or anything else.

And that's just fine by me! Whatever makes you happy ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM

And it makes me REAL happy ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

to get 400! YIPPEEEE!! That's the 200th, 300th, and now the 400th post on this thread. The stars are so happy with me today ... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM

Daylia, I do understand what you are saying. You don't see your belief as something that can be held up to the measure of science. You believe it, so it is valid for you, and does not need proofs or arguments that others come up with.

I still think it is amazing how strong the emotional tie to belief is, but it is not the first time I have seen it, and not even the most extreme example. I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand how strong belief is in motivating people and how completely opposed to logic people can become when they have a strong belief.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:56 AM

Physicist Richard Feynman read a book on cold reading, and then practiced it for fun. He got so good at it that he quit because people were insisting that he was actually psychic, but refused to admit it. They would not hear a word of his factual and truthful explanation of his "gift".

In this particular thread, I am fascinated by the tremendous hostility towards the concept of even testing a claim. Forget bias or slant or whatever in how data are examined or what the data even are. The idea of putting atsrology to any kind of objective test is apparently "ignorant". Little irony in that, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM

I am going to go one question at a time and really slowly here.

Daylia - when John Addey said (1967), in perhaps themost extensive survey of time twins made by an astrologer, 'one would expect to find really exceptional [his emphasis] similarities of life and temperament only in those born almost exactly at the same time
[within a few minutes] and in the same locality', nevertheless 'the tendency for similarities to appear in the lives of those born on the same day must remain strong and well worth investigating'

Do you agree with him or disagree with him?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

"version of reality" ia an oxymoron said Flamenco Ted. What I should have said, of course, is "versions of models of reality". Two assumptions I've made here:

(1) that there is a reality that exists independently of the observer. That's true as far as we can tell so far in all circumstances except those in which quantum lumpiness has not been evened out statistically.

(2) that the reality can be approached by modelling- ne model fits better than another, and that we can (if so desired) devise ways of checking how good the fit is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:19 AM

That's all right then. We must keep this thread firmly rooted in the real World.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:26 AM

Alice, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said in your last paragraph. But you still completely disregard (or maybe just misunderstand) what I said about the difference between 'knowing' 'believing'. I do not 'believe' a thing about astrology, or anything else! I've explained what I mean by "knowing" at least half a dozen times above too .. even gave the dictionary definition for the sake of the pedants here. What a waste of time and energy ...

Anyway, who gives a frog's patootie (thanks for that, LH :-) what I think, or what I enjoy, or which attitudes/approaches/techniques/study materials work best for me and which do not? It really doesn't matter, except to me!

And like everyone else on the planet, you are also free to explore and use whatever makes you happy, whatever you find works best for you right now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

Bagpuss, I honestly don't know. I'm not an astrologer, and I don't care much for the idea of "time twins" anyway. Kinda sounds like "soul-mates" .... eeewwwwwwwwww .....

Please save questions like this for a real astrologer. My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited, and Ivor already said he'd see what he could do to answer honest queries at the end of the month.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

BTW, Alice, there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation ie the subjective experience of love, compassion, joy, yearnings, the 'source' of Mozart's musical inspirations and genius etc etc etc ...

Knowing that these phenomena are real anyway does not reflect badly on science, or scientists or anyone else, does it?

Hey, just as an aside, has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious? Does anyone know?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM

The phrase 'time twins' is simply a shortened way of saying two children born in the same location and very close together in time. This will have become more common in the West in the last century, as more births are now in Hospital, rather than at home. By having births concentrated, it makes it far more likley that two or more will occur together, ie within minutes and yards of each other.

The only time realistic way this would occur outside of hospital is with real twins, and the whole point of time twins to see look for similarities due to their birth charts,not due to them being brough up together.

Nothing to do with soul mates or such like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:19 AM

Hmm ... thanks for clarifying, Paul. I will say this, from my own personal experience of twins. IN my understanding of the biological sciences, my identical twin sons (like all other identical twins) have identical DNA. They were born 10 minutes apart, in the same hospital room.

Now, because they have identical DNA, according to science they should be identical in appearance and in every other manner, right? And according to the behavioural sciences, seeing as they were raised together they should be very similar in personality too.

Well, they are not. Not even physically. They are quite similar-looking, but certainly not identical. Strangers have trouble telling them apart at first, but people who know them well do not. And there are significant differences in personality too. Twins or no, born at the same location or no, raised in the same home or no -- they are still two very unique individuals. And as adults, they are "actualizing" whatever potentialities they were born with as their chosen (and very different) life circumstances permit, and of course as they see fit. IN so doing, they will most likely become even more "different" over the course of their lives.

So I'm guessing -- please read that correctly, it does say GUESSING -- that the same conditions apply to astrological "time twins" as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

Oops, sorry Bunnahadhain. You're not Paul, obviously!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

So how can you completely reject the idea that science can examine the claims of astrology, if you don't even know what claims astrology could make.

I put it more simply the first time. If two people were born within a few minutes apart in the same city, would you expect them (based on astrology) to be more similar in personality (personality traits which are commonly used in astrological chart) than any two random people? If you still claim not to know because you are not an expert, I wonder on what basis you believe (know in your own words) in astrology. This premise would seem to me to be a central tenet of astrology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

*reading...just not making any more detailed comments*

but one interesting phenomena I DO experience is 'serendipity'...

and yesterday, after taking a deep breath and stopping typing, I looked at my daily paper to distract myself with the comics....and there, side-by-side, were these:

The Flying McCoys

Wizard of Id

a message? Perhaps! ☺


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Re twins. Yes identical twins are not identical in every way, but they are much more alike than non identical twins. And their environment is not identical, they do not have identical experiences. Also there is a tendency among some twins to want to assert their own individuality, so they become more different from eachother consciously and deliberately. All of this would explain why they are not identical in every way. No need postulate another mechanism such astrology to explain the discrepancy.

As for contagious yawning (of course it depends on what level of explanation you are after), I think the most common theory is that it developed as a mechanism for coordinating sleep times within a community. Interestingly individual differences in susceptibility to contagious yawning is related to levels of empathy, and I think that autistic people are much less susceptible to it.

Bagpuss


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

"there's been absolutely nothing posted on this thread yet that 'proves' or 'disproves' a single thing I've said"
Then you need to learn how to read....

"My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited"
Holy backpeddle Batman....

"there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation"
That just shows you don't know fuck all about science...

"has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious"
Ya... it isn't....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

Wow that's just otherworldly Bill, and you still refuse to believe?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

Bagpuss, I've already explained how I know the little I do know about astrology ad nauseum on this thread. HOw boring ....

Pardon me, but while I used to find this discussion amusing and entertaining, the novelty is beginning to wear off..

Hmph.

*yaaawwwwn*   

the day is too young for this   

and it's raining out there too

and I don't go to back work for another 3 looooong hours   

*sniff sniff*

Oh well, I'm off for greener and more musical (but hopefully dry) pastures. It's been fun, ye *potholes*!   I may check back in after the 27th, if this thread is still around by then. But then again *yawn yawn*   maybe I won't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

It isn't just yawning that's contagious, daylia, so are most other behaviours.

Arguing, for example, is contagious. (this forum has proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt!) So is smiling. Also laughing. And hurling insults. And being competitive. And so on...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

Damn, now she's got me yawning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

She's had me yawning since her first post....

But then I find idiots to be very boring....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

No you don't, Clinton. You love them, because they give you someone to pick on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

I have you for that...

Oh wait... yer one too....

How convenient eh


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

Why people believe what they believe is not boring to me. It is frustrating, though, trying to communicate with some people about their beliefs. I remember one author on the subject of new religions writing about how extremely powerful belief is. People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

As I have you, Clinton. It's contagious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM

You don't have me.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

We have a symbiotic relationship, Clinton, similar to this one:

Karen and Milkman Dan

I'm Karen. You're Milkman Dan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

You give yourself too much credit... You're as close to nothing to me as one can get without actually being nothing....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Precisely. I woudn't have it any other way, because I feel the same about you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:46 PM

Bully for us eh....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM

Meanwhile, daylia's thread drifts farther and farther off course into the Sea of...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

... Where-It-Belongs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

and it was GUEST,Martini that started this thread...

not Flakelia....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

True, but it is daylia who has made it her own, seems to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:43 PM

The statistics would tend to prove that out:

Name                            #posts
*daylia*                         110
ClintonHammond                        57
Little Hawk                         57
Bill D                                 37
Bagpuss                         30
TIA                                 16
GUEST                                13
Gervase                         12
Purple Foxx                         11
M.Ted                                 11
bobad                                 10
Alice                                 7
autolycus                         6
Bunnahabhain                         6
Cluin                                 6
Paul Burke                         6
Wolfgang                         6
flamenco ted                         4
kendall                         4
Peace                                 4
Escamillo                         3
Azizi                                 2
Donuel                                 2
GUEST,Martini                         2
SunnySister                         2
Bee-dubya-ell                         1
cool hand Tom                         1
Dave (the ancient mariner)         1
Emma B                                1
frogprince                         1
GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.         1
JennyO                                1
Kaleea                                 1
Rapaire                         1

Of course this kind of "western science" statistic may not apply here. For instance it might be possible for someone to KNOW that say..."GUEST,Microsoft tech dept." has made the most postings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

Proof that quantity isn't all it's cracked up to be eh....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

This gives us both 58, Clinton... ;-P

Shambles would be impressed by the longevity of this thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:09 PM

Accidentally posted above-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--

I am a little less sure why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry, except, apparently, he thinks it is "crap". Of course, he thinks everything is crap, which is, perhaps, why he seems so darned happy all the time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

"why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry"

Who said I was angry?

Life is too short to waste it being angry at something posted on the internet...

jeeze...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

"Rude" is not necessarily angry...or is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 08:59 AM

For Alice and the rest of the Mudcat Pothole Gallery: RE the propoganda (ie malicious fallacies) in your posts and how to avoid them in future

This is specifically in reference to Alice's words I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand ... People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day."

Notice how lopsided and negative this argument is! She tries very carefully to avoid the direct use of slanted metaphor (after having just witnessed what happened to poor ole Professor Bill) but still, her entire post(s) is slanted.

Notice how she focuses entirely on certain 'media darlings" -- highly twisted, horrible, tragic and (thankfully) very rare effects of "belief -- while completely ignoring the vast array of everyday positive ones (ie the countless lives saved and people helped via charities run by the religious; the personal hope, comfort and inspiration toward love and goodwill that many many religious people find in their faith every day etc etc)

In so doing, she hopes to create the same lopsided, distorted and patently false impression of the subject under discussion here as she does of 'belief' in general. And a lot of readers are taken in by this no doubt .... but not this one.

So, why do people like Alice and Bill and rest of the potholes do what they do to mislead others? And what can be done about it? From the article I linked to:

"When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue, but it is typically used in less dramatic ways ...

When confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

    * Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?
    * How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?
    * Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?
    * When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal? "

Now, certain potholes above claim I've also ignored "evidence" (???) contradicting my views, in spite of the fact that there's absolutely no such thing for me to ignore here, even if I wanted to!

Nothing posted on this thread 'proves' or 'disproves' anything a thing I've said about astrology, scientifically or otherwise! "Proving" or "disproving" astrology via objective scientific methodology is simply not possible to date.

In fact, it may never be possible.

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--


Hear hear, MTed!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM

Besides public education, I had another motive for posting what I did above ... The word for '4' is 'Ha' in Hawaiian, and I just wanted to say ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:01 AM

444! Ha ha HA!!!!   :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Is it the 27th already?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

Nope -- but I was told to post this in a dream last night, by a transsexual fairy 1000 feet tall wearing nothing but pale pink fishnet stockings and rubber boots.

With 60 stars on his/her head.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:11 AM

And a huge purple booger hangin out his/her nose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM

(dripping disgustingly all over the "skeptics dictionary" tucked under his/her arm)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:18 AM

(which he/she happily agreed to donate to the nearest gaping filthy threatening pothole, but only after I agreed to post)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

Forgotten your meds again, Daylia?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:24 AM

Who, me? NEVER!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM

Maybe you need to up the dose, then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM

Well, how's your daily dosage doing GUEST?

Maybe you better cut back a bit. YOu might get a handle on yourself that way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Crystal
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

Apparently one researcher really thought he had somthing with the zodiac influencing personalities, right up to the point where he sent the profile of a mass murderer out to his test subjects and 90% of them agreed that it had them spot on!

Saying that however I am a pure Pisces through and through (scatty, unreliable, dreamy...), maybe it isn't true, but it is nice to hold on to some faith!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:58 AM

Apparently one researcher really thought he had somthing with the zodiac influencing personalities, right up to the point where he sent the profile of a mass murderer out to his test subjects and 90% of them agreed that it had them spot on!

LOL!

Every human being has the potential to become a mass murderer, while (thankfully) only very few of us choose to actualize that potential.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

Nothing posted on this thread 'proves' or 'disproves' anything a thing I've said about astrology In partiular, nothing posted by you.
If I were to stumble across this thread as a disinterested observer who had no feelings one way or another about astrology, I would leave it thinking that its adherents were hysterical, foot-stamping shriekers who made Violet Elizabeth Bott look like Ruth Kelly. And I would certainly not consider astrology to be a pursuit for the rationally-minded.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

That isn't terribly helpful to those of us who have no idea who either Violet Elizabeth Bott or Ruth Kelly might be...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

Don't hold back, Gervase....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

War, gambling, and football are not pursuits for the rationally-minded either. That doesn't seem to have reduced their prevalence or their popularity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

In partiular, nothing posted by you.

Wow Gervase, the perfect accuracy, subtle depth and profound clarity of that particular observation is truly astounding!!

If I were to stumble across this thread as a disinterested observer who had no feelings one way or another about astrology, I would leave it thinking that its adherents were hysterical, foot-stamping shriekers who made Violet Elizabeth Bott look like Ruth Kelly. And I would certainly not consider astrology to be a pursuit for the rationally-minded.

Mm-hmm.

The 'rationally-minded' quite often resort to good ole ad hominems, however incomprehensible, when other less obvious tactics fail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM

" The 'rationally-minded' quite often resort to good ole ad hominems, however incomprehensible, when other less obvious tactics fail."

And you're the prime exampe of that in this thread....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 03:41 PM

Everyone approves highly of their own rationality and is offended by the apparent irrationality of others who don't (or can't) see it the same way for some reason.

Everyone believes in stuff that other people think is ridiculous or meaningless.

Everyone thinks he's right and those who don't see it his way are wrong.

And thus it has ever been...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM

Oh, yea, another Slagging Fest on the Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM

That isn't terribly helpful to those of us who have no idea who either Violet Elizabeth Bott or Ruth Kelly might be
Where are you reading this?
JFGI!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM

I am reading this in Orillia, Ontario, Canada, and I have no idea what JFGI means either... Jesus F*cking Garment Industry? Jack Fell Gathering Ipods? John Finds Growing Investment?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM

Wow.. you really are thick aren't you...
JFGI

Just FKNG GOOGLE It....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

Google JFGI?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

You can't be serious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:29 PM

Here ya go LH. Welcome to your online Jewish home.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM

Right then! I Google JFGI...and what do I find?????

The Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis.

"Welcome to your online Jewish home!

For more than 100 years, the Jewish Federation has been the voice of the Indianapolis Jewish community. The Federation and its agencies, in cooperation with the synagogues, function to promote the general welfare of the Jewish community and to ensure the creative survival and continuity of the Jewish people."

"JFGI"

LOL! Someone should tell Martin Gibson about this. Naw....he probably already knows about it.

This still sheds no light on the matter of Ruth and Violet Wass's'name...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

Leave the astrologers alone! OK, they're deluded, but unlike the similarly deluded Christians (and all other Superstitians), they're not actually dangerous. Concentrate on the real problem!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM

"Concentrate on the real problem!"

Rampant human gullibility and ignorant medievalism IS a real problem...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

It's a bigger problem than you are, Clinton.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

Amen to that, but astrologers don't have quite the penchant for starting wars that the Superstitians have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM

"astrologers don't have quite the penchant for starting wars that the Superstitians have"

True


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

A real shame about the thread drift and then again, Mercury (symbolising communication, inter alia)is retrograde. So hardly surprising.

See you soon

Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM

Anyone read Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert? Might be interesting to anyone interested in the science of belief. He's a very good popular science writer. I really enjoyed his "Malignant Sadness" about depression.

"Why do 70 per cent of Americans believe in angels, and thousands more that they have been abducted by aliens? Why does every society around the world have a religious tradition of some sort? What makes people believe in things when all the evidence points to the contrary? Why do 13 per cent of British scientists touch wood? In "Through the Looking Glass", the White Queen tells Alice that to believe in a wildly improbable fact she simply needs to 'draw a long breath and shut your eyes'. Alice finds this advice ridiculous. But don't almost all of us, at some time or another, engage in magical thinking? Professor Lewis Wolpert investigates the nature of belief and its causes. He looks at belief's psychological basis and its possible evolutionary origins in physical cause and effect. How did toolmaking drive human evolution? Is it the lack of an explanation about fundamental questions which is truly intolerable? Are we born with an evolutionary propensity to believe in things that make us feel better? Wolpert explores the different types of belief - including that of animals, of children, of the religious, and of those suffering from psychiatric disorders. And he asks whether it is possible to live without belief at all, or whether it is a necessary component of a functioning society."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

"What makes people believe in things when all the evidence points to the contrary?"

Humans are stupid and scared


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM

Most people believe most of what they believe on the basis OF evidence....the evidence they gained through their own past experiences. That accounts for the lion's share of what they believe and take for granted in life.

Then there is the stuff they've heard about, but have no little or no evidence for or against yet. They may tend to believe in some of it or they may not, depending on what the want to believe in.

That's what you object to, Clinton. It's got nothing to do really with evidence.

There is no evidence against most of the stuff you automatically reject. If there were evidence for it (and there may be) you wouldn't be imterested. Your mind is all made up already, regardless of evidence, unless that evidence is presented by certain specific official authorities you respect, in which case you would immediately get on board, I imagine.

Like most people, you believe exactly what you already wanted to believe...whether or not there's any evidence for or against it. You are impervious to evidence, in my opinion, unless it fits your belief systems. So are most people.

And anyway, the evidence that most sceptics say they require in order to alter their beliefs is usually NOT clearly available, and if it were, they wouldn't go out and seek it! Therefore they can remain safe and unchanged in their beliefs...just like religious fanatics do. They just ignore, deny, or laugh at everything they don't agree with. That's what you do.

You really ought to become religious, because you've got the perfect mindset for it already. You know all there is to know. Religions thrive on that attitude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

Again LH, you prove you don't know shit about me....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 05:11 PM

I know. It saddens me terribly, but what can I do? I'm not about to move in next door to you just so I can know more about you. I can only go by what you type on this forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

There's a home across the street from us where you'd probably fit right in....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 06:46 PM

You figure? Do they allow chimps? If Chongo can't move in, neither will I.

But I don't like Windsor all that much anyway...

Are you willing to sponsor me by paying 1/2 the rent for the first year?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Tabby
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:41 AM

Astrology is such trash: Pure fabrication with no sensible basis whatsoever.   But what a hoax. People seeking nifty easy pre-fab identities, and those desperate for cliques to belong to, lap it up. It pretends depth by associating itself with planets and stars, thereby trying to syphon their mystery and grandeur. Universally common traits are slotted into categories anyone can identify with, so no matter what sign you are appointed to, it is bound to fit you. I'm sure if you could convince any dedicated "Capricorn" he/she was actually a "Leo," their focus would shift to identifying with any or all "Leo" traits with just as much enthusiasm and amazement at how well the descriptions fit. To believe that what kind of day/month/year you are going to have can be predicted without consideration of your free will and your personal circumstances is really quite insane. The entire concept of astrology is insane.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM

Mercury (symbolising communication, inter alia)is retrograde. So hardly surprising.


Nah - the thread hasn't drifted at all. The question was asked and plenty of answers have been given. If thread drift equates to people saying things with which you don't agree then, er...
The gist, for most sensible people, is that astrology is complete cobblers but the simple-minded and gullible cling on to it because people like that have a need to believe in something.
As for Mercury being retrograde - what about absolute twaddle! Mercury is 'retrograde' insofaras it appears to be going backwards. That is an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth. If the thread appears to be taking an unacceptable direction or 'drifting', I suggest that it's more to do with a reaction to retrograde thinking than planetary motion.
However - so as not to sound too cynical - as the heavenly matron seems to have given astrologers a chit excusing them any divination until the 27th, I eagerly await the bombshell that will surely materialise after that date which will prove once at for all the validity of astrology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM

I eagerly await the bombshell that will surely materialise after that date which will prove once at for all the validity of astrology.

Don't hold your breath, Gervase.

Here's a better approach --- from Essay Review: Tibetan and Western Models of Mind by David Fontana

"For generations the notion that scientific theories represent objective, independent physical reality has been serious challenged by philosophers of science. Indeed, there are few today who adhere to such straightforward scientific realism. Among the many problems with the realist position is the fact that multiple, mutually incompatible theories can often be presented that equally account for a given body of experimental evidence. A philosophically unreflective approach to science gives the impression that objective reality screens out false hypotheses, leading to only one true theory. In fact multiple hypotheses are often put forth, and the choice among them is based on various human factors...

Even Max Planck's famous idea of 'quanta' of energy is just such a proposition. The notion of 'quanta' provides us with an opportunity for explaining diverse and apparently incompatible microphysical phenomena, but more recently Timothy Boyer (see e.g. 'The Classical Vacuum' in Scientific American, August 1985) has outlined a concept which demonstrates that we can explain such phenomena without recourse to the notion of 'quanta'. In the world of microphysics, it has in fact never proved possible to made a direct observation of subatomic entities. We merely infer their existence from circumstantial evidence (e.g. the macroscopic effects - such as traces in a cloud chamber - they produce when they interact with certain measuring devices). In effect, we create a hypothetical concept which has an 'as if' reality, but this is not the same as demonstrating physical realities.

We cannot hide the fact that 'physics has never been able to demonstrate that its theoretical concepts uniquely account for the experimental facts' - hence the presence, common throughout physics, of the multiple incompatible theories which in their various ways can each be used to account for the same phenomenon. Problems arise not because such theoretical concepts only describe hypothetical realities, but because they are presented - at least to the student and the layperson - disguised in the trappings of physical reality.

Upon close examination it appears that no theory is true in the sense of describing or explaining reality as it exists in its own inherent nature. Nor is such an ultimately true theory to be found in any eventual integration of scientific and contemplative insights. If we grasp on to any theory as being true in the above sense, we may become satisfied with that conceptual construct of reality, and that impedes the quest for truth, which finally transcends all concepts. We may avoid this obstacle by asking not whether a theory is true, but by inquiring to see how meaningful it is."


On the other hand, I do eagerly await the bombshell that will surely prove, once and for all, the validity of the scientific hypothesis that Mozart's musical genius, for example, is no more than the random functioning/products of his biological wetware.   ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

Science isn't about some abstract idea of 'truth' but about what fits. You have to demonstrate some kind of approximation to what happens- otherwise it's not science. And it's what happens that is the ONLY test. So you can come up with many models that fit the observations- and they only differ when you use the model to predict the NEXT observation. That's when the science happens.

You can make up as many different explanations as you like, but until you come up with a test by which you can demonstrate that one explanation is better than others, and it must be a test that other people can repeat, it's just so much hot air.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM

WEll if science does not concern itself with truth, then I will not concern myself with science. (But it does. And I do.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 10:02 AM

Aye, particle physics has always had a whiff of metaphysics about it; no job for a grown-up, what with all the dead cats and uncertainty...
Nonetheless, the article abstract you copy and paste above bears no relation to the 'truth' or otherwise of astrology. The actions of particles can be seen from their effect in a cloud chamber - the actions or whatever of the planets and other astral bodies involved in astrology can be seen...er...well, only in the minds of those for whom astrology is real.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM

" Are you willing to sponsor me by paying 1/2 the rent for the first year?"

OHIP might very well cover most, if not all, of it....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:31 PM

the article abstract you copy and paste above bears no relation to the 'truth' or otherwise of astrology.

Put aside your preconceptions and look deeper, and with a free and open mind Gervase. If you can.

Look how Jung wrestled with the question of reincarnation - a doctrine quite like astrology, from the objective scientific materialistic perspective:

"The question of karma is obscure to me, as is also the problem of personal rebirth or of the transmigration of souls. With a free and open mind I listen attentively to the Indian doctrine of rebirth, and look around the world of my own experience to see whether somewhere and somehow there is some authentic sign pointing toward reincarnation.

Naturally, I do not count the relatively numerous testimonies, here in the West, to the belief in reincarnation. A belief proves to me only the phenomenon of belief, not hte content of the belief. This I must see revealed empirically in order to accept it.

Until a few years ago I could not discover anything convincing in this respect, although I kept a sharp lookout for any such signs. Recently, however, I observed in myself a series of dreams which would seem to describe the process of reincarnation in a deceased person of my acquaintance. But I have never come across any such dreams in other persons, and therefore have no basis for comparison. Since this observation is subjective and unique, I prefer only to mention its existence and not to go into it any further. I must confess, however, that after this experience I view the problem of reincnation with somewhat different eyes, though without being in a position to assert a definite opinion."

(From "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" by Carl G Jung).

This describes very well how I arrived at my present view of astrology, and a few other subjects as well. And I do wish I'd been around to compare dream content with Jung! He wouldn't have felt so 'all alone'    :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

PS I really like this metaphor, from the Dalai Lama's The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality -- "Science is but one finger on the hand of humanity".

If we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot grasp a *blessed* thing.    And we lose our grip on reality, on the seemingly endless diversity of human experience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:03 PM

"with a free and open mind"

Evidently your open mind fled the coop a long time ago....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:05 PM

That's ok too, Clinton. I really don't mind you at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM

If we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot grasp a *blessed* thing.   

Well, I can grasp plenty of things using only one finger*. It's not as strong as using my whole hand, but it's a grip none the less.

Just like people, no metaphor is perfect, but some are better than others.


* if there are medical reasons you can't, I'm not trying to cause offense


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:33 PM

Clinton, don't you ever fear that people may begin to gather in angry mobs outside your door, start throwing stones, that sort of thing....?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM

Bring 'em on... I prefer a straight up fight to all this sneaking around...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

All righty then! That's the spirit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:09 PM

Would you two just get a room!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

ooh - 500?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:14 PM

We have not really worked out the kinks in our online relationship yet, Jeri. I think "a room" together might be a premature move at this time...

(nice job on the 500 there)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

You couldn't take it LH.... I promise you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:30 PM

Well, I can grasp plenty of things using only one finger*. It's not as strong as using my whole hand, but it's a grip none the less.

Good point! Hmmm   let's see    how about 'if we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot fully grasp a *blessed* thing'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:33 PM

Or wait .... any *blessed* thing too large for that one particular finger to grip.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM

And a weak tenuous grip is better than no grip at all. I'll give you that!

Uh oh    there's a song in here somewhere    I know it    A Jingle For A Single-Fingered Quest maybe An Ode to the Lonely Digit hmmmmm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

Now you're just posting spam


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM

Spam fingers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Eeewwwwwwwwwww    :-p


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:26 AM

That reminds me of the old joke about the legless parrot who used to hold onto the perch with his one little "finger"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 03:42 AM

Having finally admitted that science has a grasp on reality, even if it was a grudging admission that claimed it was one- fingered, it is up to you to show us what precisely it is that you think the other fingers are grasping. I propose that it's not even fresh air, it's simply without substance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM

it is up to you to show us

Says who, Paul? You??

Do your own investigating, thanks. I do more than enough for one person.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:21 AM

PS ANd I propose that if Jung or Freud or Einstien or Hawkings etc etc had sat around demanding that someone else to show them what to think (empirically, of couse), they'd have figured out as much about life as the rest of us have.

Diddley.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:12 AM

PPS It's been said over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically. YEt people still demand that I "prove" it to them!

Well, if someone demanded I tell them what I now about music theory as rudely and arrogantly as you folk, I wouldn't be bothered to give them the time of day.

And even if their initial attitude toward music theory and toward myself did seemed to merit some sort of response, if during the course that discussion they turned out to be as malicious, thick-skulled and vapour-headed as some of you folk, I'd simply show them the door.

It's been shown over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically or any other way. YEt people still demand that someone or something "prove" it for them!

HOwever, there's a silver lining in even the thickest, darkest and most annoying of clouds. These observations will become Chapter 3 of my soon-to-be-released "Pothole Psychology".

And I already have the first couple verses of "Jingle For the Single Finger (or, Ode to the Lonely Digit)" too!   Ahhh ... life is good. It says so in the stars!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 06:56 AM

Furthermore, what is the sound of one finger pressing the button?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Or one finger on the trigger?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Or one finger in each ear??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:18 AM

Never discount the Power of One! (finger)

K I'll give it a break now. It's a long long LONG way to 600    *sigh*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM

Do your own investigating, thanks.
Er, I did, and I discovered that astrology was a load of old tosh. See the earlier message way back in the swirlings mists of wittering...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

Er, I did, and I discovered that astrology was a load of old tosh.

MOst impressive, Gervase. A veritable monument of ungenuity!

BTW what is 'old tosh'? We don't have 'tosh' of any age here.
We have lots of nice young tush though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:45 AM

Ah ... I see ... a load of ole tosh. Gotcha.

(HINT: studying any subject is easier and more productive when the student is untoshed).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

Oh yes, I remember what you were so toshed up about. You found differences between Eastern and Western astrology   (*gasp*    how shocking!) and pondering those differences shorted out your neural circuitry.

Reminds me of how I decided to study language once. Didn't take long to discover that every language is different. Looks different, sounds different, feels different -- and none were comprehensible to me, except my own.

Therefore, all languages are trash. Absolute hooey! And it's up to you to prove they're not. Hurry up now, get typin --- I'm waiting!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM

Actually, I'm experimenting with the One-Fingered Approach right now. Sounds quite thin and shakey, mind you, but it's fun!

He likes it too, I see.   

And no wonder it's so popular around here ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Kweku
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Faith is a strong medicine for success.

I know people who worship a small piece of stone,which weighs less than a kilogram and this object has brought them so much luck and good tidings.

Be it in the sky or on the ground,be you non-religious or religious,as a human being you need something to hold on to.

You seldom need the opinions of others,because the very people you rely on, "developed themselves from their selves". And the first rule of success is to know who you are,and one of the ways to do that is through having enough time for yourselve by yourselve. Then you might just come up with your own theory on life, and with time others might just conclude that you are also worthy of being followed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

... others might just conclude that you are also worthy of being followed.

Ahhh yes    and therein lies the rub


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Edwin Drood
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

. . . his gaze wandered from the windows to the stars, as if he would have read in them something that was hidden from him. Many of us would, if we could; but none of us so much as know our letters in the stars yet - or seem likely to do it, in this state of existence - and few languages can be read until their alphabets are mastered.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

You found differences between Eastern and Western astrology   (*gasp*    how shocking!) and pondering those differences shorted out your neural circuitry.

No, you daft bint, I found out that astrologers weren't actually playing with a full deck.
They have too few constellations in the zodiac, fudge the issue of newly-discovered planets and can't answer the issue of precession. And that's not even mentioning gravitational effects, relative masses and geocentricity.
It was the incompatibility between astronomy and astrology that led me to believe it to be bunk, not any differences between eastern and western astronomy. Between science and pseudo-science, not between two brands of pseudo-science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,William
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

Look how the floor of heaven
Is thick inlaid with patens of bright gold.
    There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
      But in his motion like an angel sings,
       Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins;
          Such harmony is in immortal souls,
            But whilst this muddy vesture decay
             Both grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM

This will probably be my last post on this thread, as it got too much into the name calling for me.

Daylia, you keep saying that astrology cannot be proven scientifically. However, when I provide an assertion taken from astrology that could be tested scientifically (and indeed has been with negative results), you merely claim ignorance about whether than assertion is indeed one which astology would claim. Therefore you must also claim ignorance over whether science can be used to test astrology's validity. If you cannot see the logic in that statement, then there is no point in trying to have a logical debate with you.

If your beef is that science cannot "prove" as opposed to provide evidence for or against, then that is also true for anything science might tackle. Are you arguing that no scientific results should be taken into consideration on any subject, merely because they do not provide absolute proof of anything?

"It's been said over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically. YEt people still demand that I "prove" it to them!"

Nobody is demanding that you prove anything. Merely that you provide some scientific evidence in support of it, or at least openmindedly examine the evidence that has been put to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM

*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*   

Oh go cry me a river, Gervase.

Your posts are so juvenile and TIRESOME   *yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*   I just can't take it anymore.

So sorry, sweetie, but this is absolutely    *yaaaawwn   YYAAAAAAWWWWWWWN* (oooo pardon me) game over for you.

Done.

Caput.

C'est tout.

Voila.

Capiche?????

And if you think I'm just ignoring you from here on in, guess what?
That'll be the first time you've been right about anything yet on this thread, so go for it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

Give it up, Bagpuss. The premises (ie assumptions about astrology) that underlie your so-called "experiment" are fallacious to begin with. Therefore, the whole exercise is a waste of time. You wanna break your brain cells over it? Be my guest. And if you still cannot comprehend what I'm saying, try the following:

1. Study my hundreds of posts here, over and over and over again. WIth enough effort, someday soon a bit of the information might sink in.   

2. Pay very close attention to the links, quotes, and articles from the masters of science, philosophy, spirituality and psychology that I've provided. I mean it -- I'll quiz you on it later!

3. Go back to the Astrodienst site and click on FAQ. They do offer a good introduction to astrology in language even a newbie will understand.

4. Forget it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM

From the FAQ at Astrodienst:

"This is what astrology can offer you

    * a deeper understanding of yourself, your partner, your child ...
    * clues on your strengths and weaknesses, on challenges and chances in your life ...
    * a closer look at life cycles and topics which are relevant at a certain point in your life ...


Astrology cannot

    * take decisions for you ...
    * tell you whether or not you should get married, are with the right partner or will win the lottery ...
    * know the environment you live or grew up in, the circumstances of your life ...
    * forecast events in the future ..."

Got that last one, folks? Please, read it over and over till it finally sinks in. And remember it next time you come across a "scientific study" (???) attempting to prove or disprove the 'predictiveness' (???) of a natal chart or astrology in general.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM

"This is what astrology can offer you"
You can get the same bullflop from a good 'reading' of a bowl of alphabet soup....

In other words... random chance...

Give yer damn fool head a shake would ya.... Yer scuppered here... and are just too blinkered to see it.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

What I keep wondering is, who is pulling whose chain on this thread? Or is it mutual chain-pulling all around? Or is it just compulsive reactions to previous reactions? If you snarl at a dog, the dog snarls back. If you snarl back again, the dog snarls back again louder. And so on, and so on, until finally somebody remembers it's time to go and eat or something. But then...if they remember "He snarled at me!" after the meal, then they'll return in a bit and go "Grrrrr!" And the dog goes "GRRRRRRR!" And you go "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!" And in no time at all we've reached 600 posts and achieved glorious Fuck-All doing it, but everyone has at least had the joy of asserting their opinion, haven't they?

And that's another day on the zodiac thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

It's the Full Moon ☺ tonight, Little Hawk -- and a Penumbral Eclipse too (quite rare).

All on the fateful Eve of the Ides of March .... ooooooooooo ....

☺☻ Doo ♪ doo ♫ doo ♪ doo    Doo ♪ doo ♫ doo ♪ doo ☻☺


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

Looks nice. Maybe we'll get a clear sky tonight and get to see it properly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM

Well, if we can't the weather's not to blame. Apparently the best places to see tonight's eclipse are Africa and Western Asia.

The moon did look so very weird and wonderful last night though ... almost full, it was sailing behind thick swirling layers of orangey-gold-gray cloud and eerie, writhing veils of feathery black mist. At one point, the clouds slowed and a greenish ring formed around the hazy orange glow encircling 'her' bright face. A bright green and orange rainbow wrapped around the moon, sorta ... never saw anything quite like it before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:23 PM

Can't help but agree with Little Hawk - some serious mutual masturbation going on here. Irrationals, eccentrics (and even nutters!) ought to be tolerated. It's only when they want to try and get their notions into SCHOOLS and thus into the mainstream that it becomes a completely different matter and should be stamped on. Otherwise, surely the order of the day is amused indulgence? Doesn't the phrase "Yes, dear" spring to mind?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Indeed, in a reasonably elightened society, one with a bit of social grace, eccentric or offbeat opinions are not just tolerated but valued and enjoyed by most, because they make life more interesting.

Who cares if you don't agree with someone else about astrology or UFOs or whatever it may be? Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe? No. It's not awful at all, and it doesn't make them idiots, it makes them interesting. It stimulates thought and imagination.

I like it a lot better than a Puritan village or a bloody dictatorship where everyone has agreed to believe in exactly the same things (or else).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM

OK, so the rational ones with social grace have set out their stall. As an aside, is it axiomatic that the weaker a position, the more hostile the reaction to having it satirised or questioned? An educated person being lampooned or having his judgement denigrated by a flat-earther doesn't need to get angry - simply pointing to the evidence (whether the evidence is accepted by the lampooner or not) is enough. A believer in astrology (or a theist) similarly baited has no evidence to point to and must perforce take it as an attack on their person/peer group, resulting in fear/anger and (normally enough) hostility. Make sense?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,the animal
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

Can't believe people like Gervaise who doubt the mighty star signs. I'm am Arian, bit headstrong, impulsive and wonderfully strong and sexually inivitive. The other day I read a horoscope saying I was entering a period of dramatic change, financial reward, exitement, pain and ecstasy.

Next day I picked up a handsome redundancy cheque,went to the pub, got absolutely areseholded, met a buxom young wench in similar inebriated state, had great sex in local graveyard, broke my wrist, was arrested, when I woke up in plaster in the cells with a monumental hangover, the female goaler gave me an amazing blowjob in exchange for the remainder of my redundancy payment. How's that for an accurate prediction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM

"Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe?"

It's not that they believe things that I don't... it's that they CLING desperately to medieval superstition and ignorance... Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary....

The stone around the neck of human advancement and enlightenment....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 03:54 PM

Clinton, believe me, it doesn't matter... ;-D

I know daylia, and she is no millstone around the neck of human advancement and enlightenment....   She's no threat to things like that at all. She has no significance in that regard. What she is, is a very good piano teacher and musician. Period. That is her useful contribution to this society, and it doesn't matter a rat's ass whether she believes in astrology or not.

It really doesn't. It's as unimportant as what you or I believe in. And lemme tell ya...THAT is unimportant, baby! ;-P We're not talkin' about people on whom the future enlightenment of society depends here, Clinton. Society does not need you to defend it from daylia's interest in astrology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:51 AM

(paraphrasing Clinton)
"Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe?"

It's not that they believe things that I don't... it's that they feed multitudes of supposed gurus who make a lot of money out of superstition ! :))

Un abrazo,
Andrés


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

"I'm am Arian" said GUEST, the animal...

BURN THE HERETIC:

"The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homoousion, Christ the Son was consubstantial (sharing the same substance) with the Father. Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the Son.

Arius and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God. The opposing Trinitarians believed it diminished the importance of the Son to make him subordinate to the Father."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:38 AM

Daylia "The premises (ie assumptions about astrology) that underlie your so-called "experiment" are fallacious to begin with".

How do you know the pr