Qualitative or Quantitative?
Edmond Wollmann
This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
astrological factor combinations, and therefore reflects what we can
examine through each horoscope is just a few of the possible varieties
of vibrational frequencies expressed by individuals at any given time on
planet Earth.
These vibrational patterns (wave forms and electro-magnetic) can be
similar of course, but individuality means individuality and is
based on more than either astrological measurements or DNA alone. It is
a conglomeration of factors all permeating one another. But these levels
and reflected vibrations can be EXPERIENCED in an infinite array of
ways.
The astrological reflections simply lay out parameters of archetypes-of
perspectives both collectively and individually. It is very hard to
measure personal experience empirically. Astrological indicators are
therefore reflective of a probable spectrum of experience. It requires
interpretation as we have said, therefore it is a co-created event.
Metaphors and psychological revelations cannot be proven empirically.
But they are valid, reportable through experience, sometimes life
changing and world changing, and powerful factors none-the-less.
The philosophical construct and approach in living techniques,
psychological lifestyle quality enhancements, as well as
self-empowerment understandings cannot be proven to anyone-they must
prove it to themselves. It is a co-created event, as are all others
(science is as well). We know, for example in psychology that diffusion
of responsibility and deindividuation is a "real" factor (wherein
helping each other in say a tug-of-war individuals exercise less effort
than when performing alone). But as to whether any certain individual in
any certain situation will practice it is an unknown.
The collective "event" of physicality is measurable because it is
rather like the autonomic nervous system-a continuous creation on
another level altogether so we needn't be preoccupied with it, which
frees us up for focus of our consciousness on the certain parameters of
the experience of living in this creation. It is empirically measurable
because to a great degree it has already been fixed in this agreement.
If one changes their view on life, this may or may not be measurable.
If say, we quit smoking because of a change in belief and
perspective-this may be measurable. If on the other hand we are
economically impoverished and change our perspective on whether economic
impoverishedness is good or bad or in any way means anything-but remain
in the same economic condition, we may be able to see and feel and
experience a different reality. But there may be no way to measure it
other than by self report.
By the same token astrology may allow us recognitions that change our
perspectives and hence life experiences dramatically-by qualitative not
quantitative measurements. And in that way, the statistical variable we
described, is irrelevant. It is indeed the theory that determines not
only what we will observe and whether it is qualitative or
quantitative-but how we measure it, obtain data about it, obtain results
and come to conclusions. The only way these things can be proven is with
desire, to the self, by the self with application, conviction, and
trust.
But we cannot measure or construct tests TO measure qualitative
variables that we ourselves cannot cognize accurately or empathically
with clear perspective- or understand without OTHERS self report.
--
"Not everything thats counted counts or that counts counted." Albert
Einstein
"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
"There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein
"I don't want to BE right, but to know WHETHER I am right." Albert
Einstein
"To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a
phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases
fails us". ..."Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of
exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not
because of any lack of order in nature".
Albert Einstein "Out of my Later Years" published in 1950
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
Einstein ^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34D90C...@nospam.net>...
>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-
Please post your derivation for this number. I'm interested in checking
your math.
Paul Rumelhart
Sherilyn
In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>astrological factor combinations
Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
estimate.
--
Sherilyn| alt.astrology
Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
PZ Myers
In article <ifW7IzAy...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@nospam.net> writes
>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>>astrological factor combinations
>
>Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
>estimate.
In addition to the astronomical calculations, I'd be interested in
knowing where that estimate of earthly population at 5 x 10^^52
came from.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
In article <34DA4F...@nospam.net>, edwol...@aol.com wrote:
> Please ask your client to stop crossposting alt.astrology.metapsych to
> sci.skeptic, this is a violation of the metapsych charter.
You included the charter, I read it very carefully, and I saw absolutely
nothing in it about forbidding cross-posting to other newsgroups. You
might want to actually read the silly thing for yourself, Edmond.
I also saw nothing in Sherilyn's post that violates the charter. She
asked a legitimate question, that you clarify a specific point *you*
had made, and she asked the question in a serious and non-judgemental
way.
Is asking questions against the newsgroup charter?
> Thanks
>
> =========Charter for alt.astrology.metapsych=========
> Charter: This group is for astrologers and students of astrology or
> practicing therapists and psychologists to discuss aspects of astrology
> primarily-but not limited to psychological/metaphysical/spiritual
> approaches of counsel and practice. This includes;
>
> 1) Personal analysis of horoscopes based on full data and information.
> 2) Psychological approaches and remediation methods in counsel.
> 3) Psychological fields of approach.
> 4) Metaphysical and/or spiritual approaches and their connections.
> 5) Humanistic, holistic or other modern or otherwise defined as new age
> approaches.
>
> Since this group is proposed on the basis of ethical and respectable
> service oriented counsel and astrological application, the following
> classes of posts are not welcome;
>
> 1) Advertisements of any sort (other than normal sig file references
> related to this group).
> 2) Arguments as to the validity of astrology AT ALL, either
> scientifically or theologically.
> 3) Cynical or otherwise detracting and negative and conflictive
> argumentation that deviates from the subject matter.
> 4) JPEG's, GIF's or other images not specifically related to topic
> discussion.
> 5) Defamation or derogatory/abusive attacks on individuals simply
> because of disagreement.
>
> There are no restrictions regarding methods, systems, or philosophies
> regarding application techniques. All astrological applications are
> welcome and/or services employing such as a part of their service.
> Innovative techniques and the integration of related cross disciplines
> to the subject matter are also welcome.
>
> Path:
>
>
newshub.sdsu.edu!newshub.csu.net!pln!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!logbrid
ge.uoregon.edu!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!sidaway.
demon.co.uk!Sherilyn
> From:
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.astrology.metapsych, alt.astrology, sci.skeptic
> Subject:
> Re: Qualitative or Quantitative?
> Date:
> Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:43:30 +0000
> Organization:
> None
> Distribution:
> world
> Message-ID:
> <ifW7IzAy...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
> References:
> <34D90C...@nospam.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host:
> sidaway.demon.co.uk
> X-NNTP-Posting-Host:
> sidaway.demon.co.uk [158.152.43.216]
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> X-Newsreader:
> Turnpike Version 3.04 <gVS+aKm0cp1qKo3xs4GXMuYkcI>
> Lines:
> 15
> Xref:
> newshub.sdsu.edu alt.astrology.metapsych:6481
> alt.astrology:174317 sci.skeptic:466128
>
>
> In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@nospam.net> writes
> >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> >astrological factor combinations
>
> Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
> estimate.
> --
> Sherilyn| alt.astrology
> Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
> Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
> misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
>
>
> Sherilyn wrote:
> >
> > In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> > <woll...@nospam.net> writes
> > >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> > >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> > >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> > >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> > >astrological factor combinations
> >
> > Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
> > estimate.
> > --
> > Sherilyn| alt.astrology
> > Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
> > Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
> > misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
>
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1998 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
--
PZ Myers
Paul Schlyter
In article <6bcr7g$lkc$1...@news.fsr.net>,
Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34D90C...@nospam.net>...
>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-
>
>your math.
Don't even bother asking -- Ed's just babbling, not knowing what he's
babbling about.
I've asked the same question to him several times -- not even once did
he answer...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Sherilyn
Edmond, to whom are you addressing this spiel? I have no clients
posting to the newsgroup, I do it myself. Moreover, my posting does not
in violation of your charter--read it for yourself. I am simply asking
you to outline the assumptions you made in arriving at your estimate.
In article <34DA4F...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Please ask your client to stop crossposting alt.astrology.metapsych to
>sci.skeptic, this is a violation of the metapsych charter.
>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>>astrological factor combinations
>
>Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
>estimate.
>--
>Sherilyn| alt.astrology
>Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
>Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
>misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
>
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@nospam.net> writes
>> >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>> >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>> >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>> >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>> >astrological factor combinations
>>
>> Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
>> estimate.
>> --
>> Sherilyn| alt.astrology
>> Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
>> Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
>> misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
>
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Sherilyn
In article <34da817e...@news.seanet.com>, John & Susan Hutchins
<widde...@seanet.com> writes
>
>And who's to say that the charter which was so helpfully posted by
>Ed, wasn't crafted by him in the first place in a vain attempt to
>assert control over yet another ng.
There's nothing wrong with that--Edmond created the newsgroup, he had
the opportunity to create the charter. Shame he fails to observe that
charter, and resorts to cynical personal attacks on posters who ask
questions he cannot answer.
Sherilyn
In article <19980206093...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
<ewoll...@aol.com> writes
>>From: "Paul Rumelhart" <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu>
>>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-
>>
>>your math.
>
>and the time in which they can occur-and multiply.
You claim to have already done it. Paul and I would like to check your
reasoning and your arithmetic.
Edmond Wollmann
Please stop crossposting to alt.astrology.metapsych
thanks
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <19980207031...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
> <ewoll...@aol.com> writes
> >
> >You are abusing this group and your harrassment of me by any measure is abuse,
>
> No, I'm just trying to continue the thread which you started; you can
> stop waving that charter at me, for you are the one violating the
> charter by attacking me in this way.
> ...
> >
> >>Now let's get back to the discussion which you started. You said:
> >> "This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
> >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is
> >> greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
> >> SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
> >> combinations"
> >
> >>And I asked:
> >> "Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above
> >> numerical estimate."
> >
> >And I already answered to Paul R;
> >It is simple it is based on the astrological factors. Which astrological
> >factors do you think I am missing?
>
> I do not state that you are missing any astrological factors. I simply
> ask you to outline the assumptions you made in making the above
> numerical estimate. People reading this can then check to see if they
> agree with your calculations. Then they can get back to you, and we
> will all have learned something. This is known as discussion. Try it.
> --
> Sherilyn| alt.astrology
> Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
> Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
> misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
--
Sherilyn
In article <34DBAF...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Your client s now DEFINITELY off topic and violating this chartter.
>Please take action.
>Thanks
Sorry Edmond, I do not have any clients flouting your charter, I make
the postings, which by the way are not in any way in violation of your
newsgroup's charter, all on my own. I do wish you would be wise to stop
cynically abusing your own newsgroup to attempt to entrap people in this
way--even animals seldom defecate where they eat.
Now let's get back to the discussion which you started. You said:
"This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is
greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
combinations"
And I asked:
"Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above
numerical estimate."
Sherilyn
In article <19980207031...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
<ewoll...@aol.com> writes
>
>You are abusing this group and your harrassment of me by any measure is abuse,
No, I'm just trying to continue the thread which you started; you can
stop waving that charter at me, for you are the one violating the
charter by attacking me in this way.
...
>
>>Now let's get back to the discussion which you started. You said:
>> "This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
>> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is
>> greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
>> SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
>> combinations"
>
>>And I asked:
>> "Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above
>> numerical estimate."
>
>And I already answered to Paul R;
>It is simple it is based on the astrological factors. Which astrological
>factors do you think I am missing?
I do not state that you are missing any astrological factors. I simply
ask you to outline the assumptions you made in making the above
numerical estimate. People reading this can then check to see if they
agree with your calculations. Then they can get back to you, and we
will all have learned something. This is known as discussion. Try it.
Sherilyn
In article <34DC19...@nspam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nspam.net> writes
>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>> > Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> > > In article <34D90C...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> > > <woll...@nospam.net> writes
>> > > >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>> > > >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>> > > >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>> > > >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>> > > >astrological factor combinations
>
>> > > Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
>> > > estimate.
>
>factors of astrological applicability and multiplication.
Please enumerate the factors.
> Which
>astrological significators have I not included, or do you believe I
>missed?
I will form an opinion on this when you enumerate the factors you used.
> And why must you cross post it to sci.skeptic to discuss it?
>Maybe they don't want it there.
I think skeptics do, in general. This is a question germane to the
application of skepticism towards pseudoscientific claims such as the
above.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/toolkit.html
What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to
construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and --
especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent
argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion
that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the
conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and
whether that premise is true.
Among the tools:
...
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation
of the "facts"
...
Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some
measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll
be much better able to discriminate among competing
hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to
many explanations.
...
Carl Sagan.
I'm simply asking you to quantify the figures for the astrological
factors which you used in coming up with the figure of
5.3937075 x 10^58. I must say, I find the presentation of the number to
8 significant digits intriguing, to say the least.
Sherilyn
In article <19980207090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, Edwollmann
<edwol...@aol.com> writes
>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a million
>Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
>combinations
Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
calculation--what numerical procedure permits you to quote your figure
to eight significant digits?
Sherilyn
In article <19980207013...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
<ewoll...@aol.com> writes
>>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
...
>Edmond created the newsgroup, he had
>>the opportunity to create the charter. Shame he fails to observe that
>>charter, and resorts to cynical personal attacks on posters who ask
>>questions he cannot answer.
>
>purposely come to a group to aggravate, demean, harrass, and defame people just
>because you don't like what they believe?
I am here to ask a question. If it aggravates you, ignore it. If you
think I have defamed you, gather your evidence and sue me. If you think
I don't like what you believe, think again. I simply wish to discuss
it.
You said:
"This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is
greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
combinations"
And I asked:
"Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above
numerical estimate."
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Sherilyn
In article <34DBD6...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
>Please stop crossposting to alt.astrology.metapsych
>thanks
Please stop posting these transparent attempts to evade the question,
which is:
You said:
>> >> "This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>> >> 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
>> >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>> >> - is
>> >> greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
>> >> SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
>> >> combinations"
>> >
>> >>And I asked:
>> >> "Please outline the assumptions you made in making the
>> >> above numerical estimate."
...
Sherilyn
In article <34DC98...@xspam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@xspam.net> writes
[attempt to change the subject ignored]
Edmond, either answer the question or quit trying to disrupt this
thread. You know the question by now, so I won't descend to your level
by spamming it. Outline your assumptions.
Sherilyn
In article <19980207184...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
>>thread. You know the question by now, so I won't descend to your level
>>by spamming it. Outline your assumptions.
>
No, spamming is wrong. You were wrong to spam and you lost your
accounts.
> My assumptions are that there are astrological factors such as
>aspects, dispositors, rulers, and these add up when all totaled to the number I
>gave-which I stated is irrelevent.
Okay, enumerate the aspects, dispositors, and rulers, and explain why
you think that these are discrete values and not continuous.
...
>If you
>know astrology you know what they are I don't have to cite them
Assume that a lot of people reading your post know nothing about
astrology.
>-and WON'T
>because the post was about-QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS-NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Then why quote it to eight significant digits?
>And the
>number was therefore irrlelevent-or didn't you read it? The number was ONLY
>quoted to EVIDENCE its irrelevency-are you arguing for me:-))))
My question was not as to its relevancy, but as to its accuracy.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <19980207184...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
> <ewoll...@aol.com> writes
> >>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
> >>Edmond, either answer the question or quit trying to disrupt this
> >>thread. You know the question by now, so I won't descend to your level
> >>by spamming it. Outline your assumptions.
> >You mean ascend.
> No, spamming is wrong. You were wrong to spam and you lost your
> accounts.
No I mean ascend to my level of understanding in astrology or
psychology. I have lost no accounts from spamming except AOL by posting
the McPhereson FAQ that I was told by admin Jack Bailey at AZNET was
ammunition against you cynics and to use it when you disingenuously sent
further complaints after I stopped not realizing I had reached the BI
level necessary to be considered spam.
*I* canceled pacbell, and aznet admitted to a representative of mine
that I violated no AUP and that they just couldn't take the complaints
from you paranoic cynics anymore.
Now what evidence do you have of your accusations? You are a lying,
guessing and disingenuos as per usual. And can you shut up about it now
IT is irrelevent as well. EXCEPT to prove yours and those intentions who
continually bring it up over and over and over as if it is.
> > My assumptions are that there are astrological factors such as
> >aspects, dispositors, rulers, and these add up when all totaled to the number I
> >gave-which I stated is irrelevent.
> Okay, enumerate the aspects, dispositors, and rulers, and explain why
> you think that these are discrete values and not continuous.
See below-I don't HAVE to do anything as I have said. I have said over
and over-if my posts serve you use them if they don't don't. Pretty
simple eh? NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN ANYWAY. Any scientist -real scientist
knows that-which leaves you out. Its clear where your efforts are-they
are at defaming persons, and transvestitism- not facts OR truth.
...
> >If you
> >know astrology you know what they are I don't have to cite them
> Assume that a lot of people reading your post know nothing about
> astrology.
Then the factors are;
Dispositors, rulerships, aspects, longitude, latitude, asteroid bodies
and their configurations, all harmonics involved in the division of the
hemishpheres astrologically, stars and their geometric possible
configuration relative to the earth at birth,....ad infinitum. All you
have to do is figure them out, how many of each etc. at any given
moment-they will come out to the nuber I gave or above since I said it
was the LEAST possible. ITS IRRELEVENT, astrology-LIKE PSYCHOLOGY is
concerned with qualitative improvements in the life of the person-did
you read the rest of the post? Or will you evade THAT question one more
time?
Now I have answered your question and your cynic buddies harrassing
questions in several ways several times. Answer mine.
Why do you find it imperative to kookise and post off topic to groups
who really don't want to see your "need to prove the self" childish
rants BECAUSE OF YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC AT HAND?
> >-and WON'T
> >because the post was about-QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS-NOT QUANTITATIVE.
> Then why quote it to eight significant digits?
Because like all digits they are irrelevent to qualitative improvements
in the psyche and lives of those astrology and psychology serves. It was
for a point, the point being no matter how many proofs you and other
hard-headed cynics need it IS IRRELEVENT to those who find support
through other paradigms.
> >And the
> >number was therefore irrlelevent-or didn't you read it? The number was ONLY
> >quoted to EVIDENCE its irrelevency-are you arguing for me:-))))
> My question was not as to its relevancy, but as to its accuracy.
Its accuracy is irrelevent if the number itself is. Besides I can
predict things accurately what do I care whether you know how?:-)
End of conversation.
--
"Well never mind, what they want to do, you have a right to your point
of view! It doesn't matter what they say, you're keepin the game away,
hey, hey! I can see the world tonight. Look into the future-see it in a
different light-IIIIII can see the world tonight." Paul McCartney "The
World Tonight"
anonym
Edmond Wollmann writes
> >> >> "This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> >> >> 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,
> >> >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >> >> - is
> >> >> greater than the population of a million Earths, but the
> >> >> SMALLEST possible number of different astrological factor
> >> >> combinations"
> >> >
Please outline the assumptions you made in making the above numerical
estimate.
Sherilyn
In article <34DCF3...@pacbell.net>, anonym <ano...@pacbell.net>
writes
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> Sherilyn wrote:
...
>> > No, spamming is wrong. You were wrong to spam and you lost your
>> > accounts.
>>
>
>>I have lost no accounts from spamming except AOL
I think that may be the first time Edmond has actually admitted to
spamming.
>
>That's the ony ISP we have ever said you DID lose by spamming, you jerk!
Why did Edmond lose the Pacbell account again? Something to do with
making threats of physical violence against Gary Burnore, if I recall
correctly. Oh yes, I have it archived somewhere.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/hostages/bonescrushed.txt
"...but if the son of a bitch was in front of me he'd have some
bones crushed in his skull as well."
...
>
>> by posting
>> the McPhereson FAQ that I was told by admin Jack Bailey at AZNET was
>> ammunition against you cynics and to use it when you disingenuously sent
>> further complaints after I stopped not realizing I had reached the BI
>> level necessary to be considered spam.
Edmond means "when I posted the same quote from the McPherson FAQ at a
rate exceeding 20 posts in one day." The BI spam limit is 20 posts to
one newsgroup over a period of 45 days.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/aol00.txt
all part of a larger ongoing campaign involving a total of about 83 spam
posts over a period of 45 days--again, spam.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/aol01.txt
Edmond was disciplined by AOL, but continued to make multiple posts, so
lost his account.
Edmond owes an apology to Jack Bailey of AZNET for implying that Jack
Bailey suggested that he post the McPherson FAQ redundantly.
>
>> *I* canceled pacbell,
>
>Prove it, scumbag. They certainly suspended you before you lost your
>account.Since you lie more often than you tell the truth, we'll chalk
>that up as another lie until you can prove otherwise.
>
>>and aznet admitted to a representative of mine
>
>OOOOooh! A REPRESENTATIVE of yours! You're sounding more like Earl
>Curley every day!
>
>> that I violated no AUP and that they just couldn't take the complaints
>> from you paranoic cynics anymore.
>
>Oh, man, you are some fuckin' liar.
>
I think Edmond is admitting he also got kicked off Aznet for spamming,
but Aznet were in a sticky position legally in terminating him because
they do not handle the news service, which is done through sdsu.edu.
sdsu.edu seems to have given Edmond warnings on his abuse of their
server, and he has not spammed since his mauling by AOL and Aznet.
I sent a valid complaint to sdsu.edu over Edmond's spamming at about the
time of the AOL spamming.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/sdsu01.txt
I just got email from a number of people who have crossed Edmond's path,
who are saying they wouldn't normally vote for KOTM, but they will make
an exception in Edmond's case. Perhaps the most common spur is Edmond
the spammer's own tendency to email his spurious complaint rants to
their ISP. Seldom has a poster provided such an extensive range of
reasons to vote him KOTM.
Cipher
In article <m9UagTA8...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk writes:
>I just got email from a number of people who have crossed Edmond's path,
>who are saying they wouldn't normally vote for KOTM, but they will make
>an exception in Edmond's case. Perhaps the most common spur is Edmond
>the spammer's own tendency to email his spurious complaint rants to
>their ISP. Seldom has a poster provided such an extensive range of
>reasons to vote him KO
So you'd say Edmond's faults aren't in his stars, but in himself?
Cipher
Visit one of my Mac help sites at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
PGP Public Key available at my website
PZ Myers
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <19980207184...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, EWollmann1
>> <ewoll...@aol.com> writes
>> >>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>
>> >>Edmond, either answer the question or quit trying to disrupt this
>> >>thread. You know the question by now, so I won't descend to your level
>> >>by spamming it. Outline your assumptions.
>
>> >You mean ascend.
>
>> No, spamming is wrong. You were wrong to spam and you lost your
>> accounts.
>
>No I mean ascend to my level of understanding in astrology or
>psychology. I have lost no accounts from spamming except AOL by posting
>the McPhereson FAQ that I was told by admin Jack Bailey at AZNET was
>ammunition against you cynics and to use it when you disingenuously sent
>further complaints after I stopped not realizing I had reached the BI
>level necessary to be considered spam.
> *I* canceled pacbell, and aznet admitted to a representative of mine
>that I violated no AUP and that they just couldn't take the complaints
>from you paranoic cynics anymore.
Ummm, no. You have a specific number, which implies much more specificity
to your calculation than "...ad infinitum". Saying "All you have to do
is figure them out, how many of each etc." does not tell me how to repeat
your calculation. You have not answered the question.
I'm forced to conclude that you made the number up. You tried to create
an aura of precision that was false and misleading.
>Why do you find it imperative to kookise and post off topic to groups
>who really don't want to see your "need to prove the self" childish
>rants BECAUSE OF YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC AT HAND?
I don't read alt.astrology or alt.astrology.metapsych. I am seeing your
posts where you intentionally put them -- in sci.skeptic. Don't bother
claiming that you are just replying to comments by "kookising skeptics"
in your favorite newsgroups, because you are competent enought to
consistently tinker with the followup line, so you are competent enough
to recognize precisely where you are sending this stuff.
Maybe I don't know much about astrology (nor do I want to learn more
about something that seems to attract nothing but frauds such as yourself),
but I can recognize a number. Asking how that number was calculated was
a good way to gain some insight into the assumptions and methods of
astrology -- just as if I told you that a transmembrane potential was
-70mV, the description of how it was estimated and measured would tell
you a lot about neuroscience.
And it is true! I've learned a lot about how astrology works from your
recent posts.
You make it up as you go along.
>
>> >-and WON'T
>> >because the post was about-QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTS-NOT QUANTITATIVE.
>
>> Then why quote it to eight significant digits?
>
>Because like all digits they are irrelevent to qualitative improvements
>in the psyche and lives of those astrology and psychology serves. It was
>for a point, the point being no matter how many proofs you and other
>hard-headed cynics need it IS IRRELEVENT to those who find support
>through other paradigms.
In other words, you made up the number.
>
>> >And the
>> >number was therefore irrlelevent-or didn't you read it? The number was ONLY
>> >quoted to EVIDENCE its irrelevency-are you arguing for me:-))))
>
>> My question was not as to its relevancy, but as to its accuracy.
>
>Its accuracy is irrelevent if the number itself is. Besides I can
>predict things accurately what do I care whether you know how?:-)
>End of conversation.
In other words, you made up the number, and your predictions are
as accurate as that number.
Edmond, do you want me to stop crossposting to alt.astrology and
alt.astrology.metapsych? That's fine. I'm not in the least interested
in those newsgroups, or the brain-dead denizens who believe that crap,
or the kind of people who think a charlatan like you is a credible
authority figure. I'm happy to let you wank off in your little corner
of the net.
Of the newsgroups *you* are crossposting to, I am only reading sci.skeptic.
Now if you want to continue posting extravagant claims bolstered only
by bogus, unsupported numbers that you unashamedly admit to making up,
I don't suggest that you post them to a newsgroup frequented by skeptics.
These are people who relish dissecting frauds and fakers, and only
you are to blame if you throw yourself on their knives. All you have to
do is trim "sci.skeptic" out of the NEWSGROUP line in addition to cutting
it out of the followup-to line. (by the way, your latter habit is very
petty and annoying. It's like you are shouting your arguments at another
person, but trying to stop up your ears so you don't hear his replies.)
--
PZ Myers
Cipher
In article <34e12c69...@news.c-zone.net> www.c-zone.net/sidereal/,
writes:
>pete comments: and a cipher when solved reveals a foul mouthed cunt.
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ man, that hurt! I guess I have to kill
myself now, now that you have so utterly slammed me.
So elequent, witty, a masterful putdown! And on such a high intellectual
plane! I'm in awe of your powers!!
Now, go procreate yourself, you bovine breath, addle patted lame
excuse....
Sherilyn
Al, you forgot to crosspost this psychology-related posting to a.a.m.
In article <19980212201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, Al Simak
<als...@aol.com> writes
>Ed Wollmann wrote:
>
>>> Translation: he can't!
>
>>Wrong! You forgot rule 1. No one HAS to do anything.
>
>Wrong! You forgot you aren't the one who makes up the rules!
>
>Now what astrological application, method or metaphoric psychological
>understanding with reference to astrology-the reason this group was
>created for-would you like to discuss?