What GAIL KLEIN really wants.
Hugh Jeffcoat
and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
That's it folks.
anonym™
Shall I rmgroup it when it pops up, then?
Gail Klein
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:39:55 GMT, jef...@accutek.com (Hugh Jeffcoat)
>wrote:
>>GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>>and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>>quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>>the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>>phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>>GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>>That's it folks.
>what is NCGR?
The NCGR is a national astrology organization which offers an
educational curriculum, exams, and certification. You can read
about them at their website www.geocosmic.org (or it may be .com --
don't remember at the moment). The letters stand for "national
council for geocosmic research". And no, I won't be pressuring
anyone to join. Although their T-Shirt is pretty spiffy looking
in black. :)
>and
>what are you?
:))))))))
Gail
>Pam
>--
>Pamela Gross
>be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
>Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
>It's October! LUPUS AWARNESS MONTH !!! Are you aware?
>(if not try http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/lupuslinks.html)
--
Gail Klein, NCGR-I
g...@panix.com
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>That's it folks.
what is NCGR?
and
what are you?
SeaGtGruff
> GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
> and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
> quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow the
NCGR
> party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
> phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
> GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
I joined NCGR in 1995. And while I'm just a member-at-large (because there
isn't an NCGR chapter in my immediate area), and I therefore can't comment
about what goes on at NCGR meetings, I've found NCGR to be broad-minded
regarding different astrogical schools and techniques. There are quite a few
NCGR SIGs (special interest groups) devoted to all sorts of different schools
and techniques, including sidereal astrology. It's true that to pass the NCGR
exams you must be familiar with the basic tenets of Western tropical astrology,
including standard techniques such as transits, progressions, and directions;
but once you go beyond the beginning and intermediate level exams, there is
much more freedom about what to study and use. If there is an NCGR "party
line," I'm not sure what it is, other than to concentrate on teaching and
studying different astrological techniques, giving certification exams at
various levels of knowledge and skill, and encouraging different areas of focus
and expertise according to the individual astrologer's interests.
Michael Rideout
EH Wollmann
>
> >GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
> >and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
> >quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
> >the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
> >phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
> >GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>
> what is NCGR?
National Concil For Geocosmic Research.
> and
> what are you?
A siderealist.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>Pamela Gross wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:39:55 GMT, jef...@accutek.com (Hugh Jeffcoat)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>> >and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>> >quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>> >the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>> >phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>> >GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>> >That's it folks.
>>
>> what is NCGR?
>
>National Concil For Geocosmic Research.
>> and
>
>> what are you?
>
>A siderealist.
oh, I see.
Thanks Ed
Rick
EH Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> what are you?
>A siderealist.
No, you're an *asshole*, Edie. I wouldn't want
anyone to forget that.
Hugh Jeffcoat
>Hugh Jeffcoat (jef...@accutek.com) wrote:
>
>> GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>> and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>> quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow the
>NCGR
>> party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>> phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>> GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>
>I joined NCGR in 1995. And while I'm just a member-at-large (because there
>isn't an NCGR chapter in my immediate area), and I therefore can't comment
>about what goes on at NCGR meetings, I've found NCGR to be broad-minded
>regarding different astrogical schools and techniques. There are quite a few
>NCGR SIGs (special interest groups) devoted to all sorts of different schools
>and techniques, including sidereal astrology. It's true that to pass the NCGR
>exams you must be familiar with the basic tenets of Western tropical astrology,
>including standard techniques such as transits, progressions, and directions;
>but once you go beyond the beginning and intermediate level exams, there is
>much more freedom about what to study and use. If there is an NCGR "party
>line," I'm not sure what it is, other than to concentrate on teaching and
>studying different astrological techniques, giving certification exams at
>various levels of knowledge and skill, and encouraging different areas of focus
>and expertise according to the individual astrologer's interests.
>
>Michael Rideout
The question is, MICHAEL, why does one need an organization to do the
things you list. Why does one need to join a group in order to study
astrology ? Why does one have to send money to a group in order to
know anything about astrology ? All the individual (ideosyncratic)
astrologer need do is cast horoscopes and relate those charts to the
lives of the folks for whom the charts are cast. That's the best way
to learn astrology. NCGR is more about politics and money, and much
less about astrology. The emphasis is in good party line back
slapping and not in any veracity of astrological experience.
Why should any astrologer join a group which tells them how to think,
how to proceed with astrology ? I know houseological delineative
technique works only in hindsight, after the fact, and that house
delineation cannot enlighten as to basic character delineation nor in
predictive work. Why then should I have to regurgitate lies and
fantacies in order to pass tests for certification from NCGR ? What
possible use is such certification anyway ? Just having a string of
letters after one's name is no indication that they know anything,
other than how to parrot fossillized ideas which have no practical use
whatsoever.
SIDEREAL (!) JEFF
SeaGtGruff
> The question is, MICHAEL,
There's no need to get heated about it, Jeff, at least not with me.
> why does one need an organization to do the things you list. Why does one
> need to join a group in order to study astrology ?
I studied astrology on my own for about 25 years before I joined NCGR, so I
certainly don't think that one *needs* to join an astrological organization to
study astrology. And I've preferred to study astrology by myself, without
seeking out other people in my area to study it with; it's only been in recent
years that I've started joining in group discussions about astrology.
So why *did* I join the NCGR? To be honest, I joined NCGR because I was
attending an NCGR conference, and when I paid for the conference, I found out
that I could get a $35 discount on the price of the conference if I was a
member of NCGR, and I could join on the spot. The price of membership was $35,
so I still spent exactly the same amount of money. *But*-- and this is why I
joined-- I could get that $35 discount on future NCGR conferences, plus I would
be getting newsletters and the NCGR journal. Assuming that I attend at least
one NCGR conference a year, that's like getting the newsletters and journal for
free! And even if I don't attend an NCGR conference every single year that I'm
a member, $35 is not that much money. I'm a member of ARE (the Edgar Cayce
group), and that costs almost twice as much as NCGR.
As it happens, I've attended two NCGR conferences-- the one in 1995 (when I
joined), and another one in 1997. So you could say that in 1996 I didn't "get
my money back" by getting a discount on a conference. On the other hand, I
joined in the latter half of 1995, when I attended the 1995 conference. The
1997 conference was in March, so I was still a member from when I renewed my
membership in the latter half of 1996, thus I *did* get my money back that
year. And in 1998 I attended UAC'98, and got a $35 discount for being an NCGR
member, from when I renewed my membership in the latter half of 1997. I just
renewed my membership again a few months ago, so as long as I attend another
NCGR conference before the middle of 1999, I'll "get my money back" again when
I get the $35 discount on the conference.
Obviously, membership in NCGR, ISAR, AFAN, AFA, or another astrological
organization won't be everyone's "cup of tea." But if a person plans to attend
one of the conferences, and will get a discount on the price of the conference
by being a member, and the amount of the discount is equal to the cost of
membership, then why *not* join? The person is going to spend the same amount
of money either way, and becoming a member means that he or she will get other
benefits (like newsletters and journals).
> Why does one have to send money to a group in order to know anything
> about astrology ?
One doesn't.
> All the individual (ideosyncratic) astrologer need do is cast horoscopes and
> relate those charts to the lives of the folks for whom the charts are cast.
> That's the best way to learn astrology.
You're a man after my own heart as far as that's concerned. As I said, I'd
been studying astrology on my own for about 25 years before I joined NCGR. And
I don't feel like I owe "allegiance" to any organization, whether or not I'm a
member. I read what I like, I think what I like, and I use the techniques I
like in the manner I prefer to use them in. Even when it comes to my
astrological "idols," I don't hesitate to disagree with them if I think they're
wrong about something.
> NCGR is more about politics and money, and much less about astrology.
As I said in my other post, I don't attend NCGR meetings, because there are no
NCGR chapters in my immediate area. And I don't know what goes on "behind
closed doors" in the organizational meetings at the conferences. But the
conferences and newsletters and journals are definitely about astrology. It's
certainly true that group politics and funds are going to be a part of *any*
organization, whether it's an organization of astrologers, astronomers, film
actors, dentists, plumbers, or whatever. But NCGR's membership dues are very
modest, and the cost of their exams is also very modest.
> The emphasis is in good party line back slapping and not in any veracity of
> astrological experience.
I haven't found that to be the case, but as a member-at-large, I'm sort of on
the fringes, to a certain extent.
> Why should any astrologer join a group which tells them how to think, how
> to proceed with astrology ?
So far, no one in NCGR has tried to tell me how to think, or how to proceed
with astrology. As in any gathering of astrologers, there are some people who
share the same opinions, but others who disagree and hold different opinions.
> I know houseological delineative technique works only in hindsight, after
> the fact, and that house delineation cannot enlighten as to basic character
> delineation nor in predictive work.
Ever since I started reading alt.astrology in 1995, I've been aware of the way
you and other sidereal astrologers feel about houses. Even before that, I was
aware that some tropical astrologers have elected to do away with all house
references. I can respect their decision to do so, and I'm often tempted to
use houseless charts, too.
However, the houses do seem to give me information about a person, so I
continue to use them. It's true that the issue of house systems is confusing,
but I try to be open-minded about the different systems. I've been using
Placidus, because that's the system I grew up using, and it seems to work fine
for me, but lately I've been paying a lot of attention to the whole-sign house
system, which was the original system, and which is what many or most Eastern
astrologers use. I know that some astrologers are devout proponents of
Ascendant equal houses, and I do think they're valid (because they essentially
show how the planets relate to the Ascendant), but I never found them to be
very satisfying in terms of some of my own chart positions.
One problem I have with the different house systems and zodiacs and chart
orientations (i.e., geocentric versus heliocentric) is that it's often
difficult for me to find a factor that isn't supported or repeated by some
other kind of factor, and this makes it hard to say that one system or zodiac
or whatever is better than the others.
For example, I have the Sun in tropical Capricorn, and that position fits me
very well (allowing for modifications from other factors in my chart). But
even if I do away with all sign references-- tropical *and* sidereal-- I have
the Sun parallel Saturn, so perhaps that's the *real* reason that the Sun in
Capricorn seems to fit me?
If I use the sidereal zodiac, then I have the Sun in Sagittarius, and I can
also identify with *that* position to a certain extent. But could this be due
to the fact that I have Mercury in tropical Sagittarius?
What *about* Mercury? In the sidereal zodiac, it's in Scorpio instead of
Sagittarius, and I can identify with *that* position. But I do have Pluto in
my Third House, and Mercury is quincunx Mars, with Pluto at my Mercury/Mars
midpoint; perhaps *those* factors are the source of any "Mercury in Scorpio"
traits I see in myself?
But let's focus on the houses. I have Uranus in my Second House, and that
position fits me very well. Is it possible that it's because of something
else? I do have Mars in tropical Taurus, and it's square Uranus, so *that*
might be the real source of any instability in my personal finances. But if I
use the sidereal zodiac instead, then Mars is in Aries, so that explanation
doesn't work for my sidereal chart. I don't have anything in sidereal Taurus,
but as I said, I have Mercury in sidereal Scorpio. Mercury *is* changeable,
and Scorpio *is* associated with money, but it's associated with *other*
people's money, not one's own personal finances. So if I eliminate all houses,
and use the sidereal zodiac, I'm not sure if I can account for my unstable
finances, although I may simply not be looking for it in the right places.
In general, my house positions fit me too well for me to abandon the houses
entirely. But depending on which zodiac I use, I might be able to account for
all or most of the things that those house positions say about me. As long as
the house positions continue to provide me with information that fits, I'll
continue to use them. As for whether you or anyone else wants to use them or
discard them, that is your choice, and it isn't my place to criticize you for
it.
> Why then should I have to regurgitate lies and fantacies in order to pass
> tests for certification from NCGR ?
That's a good question, although I'm not sure if your statement that they are
"lies and fantacies" is a fact or an opinion. Be that as it may, if you look
at any field of study, it's evident that the tests for that field of study are
designed to see how well the student has learned the subject matter.
Especially in the early stages of study, the student is usually expected to
become familiar with a wide variety of facts, theories, and opinions, although
the focus is on those which are most widely accepted-- including, to be sure,
historical ideas which are now considered to be erroneous-- and the material
tends to be covered less deeply than in more advanced classes. Once students
progress to a more advanced level of study, they are given more freedom as to
what classes they want to take, and what areas within the field of study they
prefer to focus on. Why should it be any different in astrology?
> What possible use is such certification anyway ? Just having a string of
> letters after one's name is no indication that they know anything, other than
> how to parrot fossillized ideas which have no practical use whatsoever.
I agree with you that certificates, degrees, and "a string of letters after
one's name" isn't necessarily an indication of what one knows about a subject.
It is possible to become an expert on a subject without ever attending a formal
class on the subject, taking tests, or becoming certified/degreed/lettered.
But our society tends to be partial towards people who have such things,
because they're taken as indications that the people have demonstrated a
knowledge of a subject. Is it fair? I don't know; I tend to think that it's
unfair. It can amount to a "good ol' boy" network of people who control the
playing field within a particular field of study. But on the other hand, there
is also a need for society to protect its members from unscrupulous frauds, or
people who are just plain incompetent. Unfortunately, professional
organizations can sometimes defend their incompetent members against attack
from "outsiders," so the system can be abused at times. This whole issue is
complicated, and it isn't limited to astrological organizations, by any means!
For the most part, I agree with the comments you've made. I don't agree with
your assessment of "houseology," as you call it, but you have every right to
your opinions, and I think the world would be a very dull place if everyone
were in complete agreement with everyone else.
Michael Rideout
Gail Klein
>On 13 Oct 1998 23:56:52 -0400, g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>>In <3627ea0e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross) writes:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:39:55 GMT, jef...@accutek.com (Hugh Jeffcoat)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>>>>and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>>>>quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>>>>the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>>>>phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>>>>GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>>>>That's it folks.
>>
>>>what is NCGR?
>>
>>The NCGR is a national astrology organization which offers an
>>educational curriculum, exams, and certification. You can read
>>about them at their website www.geocosmic.org (or it may be .com --
>>don't remember at the moment). The letters stand for "national
>>council for geocosmic research". And no, I won't be pressuring
>>anyone to join. Although their T-Shirt is pretty spiffy looking
>>in black. :)
>Gail is this a offshoot group from the rosecrusians?
No, not at all. It's just a non-profit astrological organization
which emphasizes education and research. Michael posted a very
accurate description of what they are and what they offer, earlier
in this thread.
Bob Officer
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:39:55 GMT, jef...@accutek.com (Hugh Jeffcoat)
>wrote:
>
>>GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>>and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>>quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>>the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>>phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>>GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>>That's it folks.
>
>what is NCGR?
>
>and
>
>
>what are you?
He is a pete-sock
signs himself Siderial Jeff..
What is it about siderialist that make them so looney?
Jeff what is your birthdata...
Maybe we can see something which causes this...
Bob Officer
Skepticult® # 105-757897-285
High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
Tyler of the Grand Order of the 'Evil' ILK
Trainer of "Overseers" in alt.paranormal
Official Cohooter (TM) #23
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission
in or on any other media than USENET groups is prohibited.
All claims for copyright according to the BERN Agreement
are held by the writers.
Bob Officer
>In <3627ea0e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross) writes:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:39:55 GMT, jef...@accutek.com (Hugh Jeffcoat)
>>wrote:
>
>>>GAIL KLEIN wants a moderated astrological discussion group so that she
>>>and her NCGR buddies can keep the money rolling into their
>>>quasi-religious group's coffers. No discussion, really. Just follow
>>>the NCGR party line: buy the NCGR souveniers; buy the NCGR reports and
>>>phamphlets and tracts and recommended books; believe and think what
>>>GAIL KLEIN and NCGR tell you to believe and think, and shut up !
>>>That's it folks.
>
>>what is NCGR?
>
AGroovyKat
>In <3626b05b....@news.vornet.com> bo...@NO.SPAM.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
>writes:
>
>>On 13 Oct 1998 23:56:52 -0400, g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>
>>>In <3627ea0e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross)
>writes:
>>>>what is NCGR?
>>>
>>>The NCGR is a national astrology organization which offers an
>>>educational curriculum, exams, and certification. You can read
>>>about them at their website www.geocosmic.org (or it may be .com --
>>>don't remember at the moment). The letters stand for "national
>>>council for geocosmic research". And no, I won't be pressuring
>>>anyone to join. Although their T-Shirt is pretty spiffy looking
>>>in black. :)
>
>>Gail is this a offshoot group from the rosecrusians?
>
>No, not at all. It's just a non-profit astrological organization
>which emphasizes education and research. Michael posted a very
>accurate description of what they are and what they offer, earlier
>in this thread.
Will NCGR membership be a prerequisite for participation in
alt.astrology.moderated?
--
AGroovyKat (remove purrrrrr to Email)
Scorpio Rising Club
Official Cahooters #9(a)
"...and if you must put me in a box, make sure it's a big box - with lots of
windows and a door to walk thru..." ~Dan Bern - Jerusalem~
Gail Klein
>g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>>In <3626b05b....@news.vornet.com> bo...@NO.SPAM.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
>>writes:
>>
>>>On 13 Oct 1998 23:56:52 -0400, g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>>
>>>>In <3627ea0e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross)
>>writes:
>>>>>what is NCGR?
>>>>
>>>>The NCGR is a national astrology organization which offers an
>>>>educational curriculum, exams, and certification. You can read
>>>>about them at their website www.geocosmic.org (or it may be .com --
>>>>don't remember at the moment). The letters stand for "national
>>>>council for geocosmic research". And no, I won't be pressuring
>>>>anyone to join. Although their T-Shirt is pretty spiffy looking
>>>>in black. :)
>>
>>>Gail is this a offshoot group from the rosecrusians?
>>
>>No, not at all. It's just a non-profit astrological organization
>>which emphasizes education and research. Michael posted a very
>>accurate description of what they are and what they offer, earlier
>>in this thread.
>Will NCGR membership be a prerequisite for participation in
>alt.astrology.moderated?
No. If it were, the group should be called
alt.astrology.ncgr.moderated... but it's not. :)
>--
>AGroovyKat (remove purrrrrr to Email)
>Scorpio Rising Club
>Official Cahooters #9(a)
>"...and if you must put me in a box, make sure it's a big box - with lots of
>windows and a door to walk thru..." ~Dan Bern - Jerusalem~
HB
astrology..or have I been guessing for the last 10 years and being correct
all the time...now what are the odds of that..GEEZ the mind is a terrible
thing to waste...go to another group if you don't believe in astrology..you
must have been a n abused child.
HB
you write with great depth and persuasiveness..I bet you speak your peace
equally well. my mercury = sun,pluto mars :-)
Great writing Oh Capricorn one.
HB
Gail Klein
>In article <708la1$o...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com>
>writes
>>In <19981016121324...@ng70.aol.com> agroo...@aol.compurrrrrr
>>(AGroovyKat) writes:
>...
>>
>>>Will NCGR membership be a prerequisite for participation in
>>>alt.astrology.moderated?
>>
>>No. If it were, the group should be called
>>alt.astrology.ncgr.moderated... but it's not. :)
>iiiiirrrrreeeeelllleeeevvvvaaaaannnnntttt!
>Good luck with the new group, guys.
>--
>Sherilyn|Is a smily really necessary? Ah, okay, here's a do-it-yourself
>- :
>)
I like that! :))) I do like your sense of humor, Sherilyn. I
still remember your post about Cyrano's nose, I thought it was
so cute. Hmm, let's see if I can do a do-it-yourself grin or
something...
_
:
D
Sherilyn
Paul Schlyter
> Jeff, are you really that stupid or what? of course you can predict with
> astrology..or have I been guessing for the last 10 years and being correct
> all the time...
non-astrological sources (e.g. by interviewing the customer, by cold
reading, or by prior knowledge about the customer). Also, you
probably kept your predictions vague enough to avoid being explicitly
wrong. And to you, to "be right" is probably nothing more than to
not be explicitly wrong...
> now what are the odds of that..GEEZ the mind is a terrible thing to
> waste...
challenge? If you really can make non-trivial predictions using only
astrology, and if all your such predictions are error-free, then
Randi has $1.1 million waiting for you. Good luck!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
HB
defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I give my clients.
Helping people get through some rather catastrophic events in their life is
what life is all about...helping others.. not hurting them...which is
obviously what people live for in this group...except for a select few.
This group is for people to come together and discuss astrological
principles intelligently...if you do not care to participate that is fine.
However it is exceedingly childish to harass those that know what you do
not.. and that is...that astrology IS valid and does work for people.
A little FYI here....Easily the most successful restaurant group in Chicago
utilizes astrology to set a chart for which to open each and every
restaurant with. This is called "electional astrology" they must have 20
restaurants in Chicago and numerous others through out the U.S. The odds of
never having a restaurant fail or go OOB are one in a million.
I do not need to explain what most astrologers already know.
Perhaps you need to be more open-minded and accepting of that which you do
not fully comprehend...
HB
Dr. John
>Jeff, are you really that stupid or what? of course you can predict with
>astrology..or have I been guessing for the last 10 years and being correct
>all the time...now what are the odds of that..GEEZ the mind is a terrible
>thing to waste...go to another group if you don't believe in astrology..you
>must have been a n abused child.
>
I would suggest that you have been guessing for the last ten years and
have been incorrect more than you will even admit to yourself. I'll
bet you forget most of the times you are incorrect, or rationalize
your way around to the position that you are correct even if you
aren't, or simply predict with such generality that it would be hard
to be incorrect. But we'll never know because I predict that you can't
provide the evidence on every one of you predictions to objectively
verify anything.
widdershins
>I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....I don't need to
>defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I give my clients.
Evasion of the Randi challenge noted. You're almost as good as Ed.
snip
Proud Cahooter since 1998.
General nuisance, and proud new member of
the Skepticult.
Member #159-904378-909
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
Sherilyn
>
>Hi, HB
>
>Here's the drill:
>
>>I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....I don't need to
>>defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I give my clients.
>>what life is all about...helping others.. not hurting them...which is
>>obviously what people live for in this group...except for a select few.
>
>mindset, and will be called anecdotal evidence, because it hasn't been
>replicated.
...
Worse than that, it is non-specific, unquantified. Like the statement
of a politician, it's a self-justification that is presented in
impossibly general terms. Nobody could verify HB's claims, let alone
check if they were replicable.
--
Sherilyn
Lady Nidiffer
HB wrote in message ...
>I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....I don't need to
>defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I give my clients.
Don't you feel the least bit ashamed for taking money from
people in a fraudulent way?
>Helping people get through some rather catastrophic events in their life is
>what life is all about...helping others.. not hurting them...which is
So, why don't you become a registered psychologist and counsel
people legally so if you screw up you can be held accountable?
Why are you such a coward?
...
--
Lady Nidiffer P.M.A.F.A.
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/pmafa.html
Toadology Publications/Consultations
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/tfhome.html
truth
>I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....
Do you have any more cliches to share with us today, Little
Astrologer?
>I don't need to
>defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I give my clients.
That is because you CAN'T defend or prove astrology. It is a scam and
a ripoff. Astrologers are unindicted criminals who prey on the
gullible.
>Helping people get through some rather catastrophic events in their life is
>what life is all about...helping others.. not hurting them...
Do you accept money or things of value for your astrological
'services?' If so, you ARE hurting people, just the same as if you
were to walk up to them on the street and fish their wallet out of
their back pocket. If not, you are merely providing a sick form of
entertainment.
>obviously what people live for in this group...except for a select few.
>
>This group is for people to come together and discuss astrological
>principles intelligently...
No it is not. Alt.astrology is a public forum provided by generous
and profit-seeking people who own and operate the equipment that
provides it to you. Anyone can post here as long as they follow a few
simple rules. That includes skeptics as well as astrologers.
Don't like it? Go away.
>if you do not care to participate that is fine.
>However it is exceedingly childish to harass those that know what you do
>not..
It is not childish to refute nonsense. It IS childish and wrong to
promulgate nonsense.
>and that is...that astrology IS valid and does work for people.
Provide proof.
>
>A little FYI here....Easily the most successful restaurant group in Chicago
>utilizes astrology to set a chart for which to open each and every
>restaurant with. This is called "electional astrology" they must have 20
>restaurants in Chicago and numerous others through out the U.S. The odds of
>never having a restaurant fail or go OOB are one in a million.
Provide proof.
>
>I do not need to explain what most astrologers already know.
Non sequitur. Try to post some valid content next time.
>Perhaps you need to be more open-minded and accepting of that which you do
>not fully comprehend...
No. I am never open-minded and accepting of fraud.
Thanks for playing, Little Astrologer. Now go away.
"YOU CANNOT discern dysfunctional behavior from ANY Sun/Moon combo-just
like the simpletons who evoke the Hitler schema with Sun in Taurus Moon
in Capricorn and ignore Cher and James Stewart when the want to down
me-this is just pure ego, delusional rationalization, subjective value
judging and just plain poor judgment-the sign of a NON professional
astrologer.
Period."
"GET OUT!!! All that is "happening" is you have all made me SSSSOOOOOO
determined-that you will RUE THE DAY you got a Taurus -Moon in Capricorn
Pluto in 1-THIS FUCKING DETERMINED AND MAD!!!!!"
"IIIIILLLL NNNNEEEEVVVVEERRRRR stop now!!!"
"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
I'll be retired and you idiots will still be saying
BBBBbbuuuuuuttttt bbbuttt-he does't have a, a, a, a
Spaceship!!!! Yeah, yeah that's the ticket-he doesn't
have a spcaeship! I'll bet he DOESN"T have a spaceship!
Fishing, degenerate, negating-SPINIC.
SNIPPPERDOODLE!!!!"
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH !!!!!!"
"I cannot enjoy usenet isn't there SOMEONE who can
control this crap!?"
Ed "Panty-Head" Wollmann KOTM/LMA in alt.astrology
(taking the tinfoil helmet off and donning the
Panties of Virtue)
TRUTH
Paul Schlyter
> I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....I don't
> need to defend or prove astrology for the help and solace that I
> events in their life is what life is all about...
catastrophes in the first place so no-one has to "get through" them.
Don't you agree?
> helping others.. not hurting them...
People are best helped by avoiding catastrophes, not by "getting
through" them.....
> which is obviously what people live for in this group...except for a
> select few.
I never questioned their good intentions. But I find it depressing
that they choose to use such an inefficient tool as astrology.
> This group is for people to come together and discuss astrological
> principles intelligently...
change your mind?
> if you do not care to participate that is fine. However it is
> exceedingly childish to harass those that know what you do
It works as an illusion, yes. Or as an "art form" if you prefer.
And it will work just as fine if grossly erroneous natal data are
used, as long as they're treated as if they were good.
> A little FYI here....Easily the most successful restaurant group
> in Chicago utilizes astrology to set a chart for which to open
> each and every restaurant with.
guesses.
> This is called "electional astrology" they must have 20
> restaurants in Chicago
police force them to this, or what?
> and numerous others through out the U.S. The odds of
> never having a restaurant fail or go OOB are one in a million.
be sure that not even a single one of them did fail? Or ever
will fail?
As typical for astrologers, you trust rumors to confirm your
superstition.
> I do not need to explain what most astrologers already know.
> Perhaps you need to be more open-minded and accepting of that
> which you do not fully comprehend...
Paul Schlyter
> Presently there is precious little statistical evidence to support
> astrological claims, and there has to date been no mutually-agreeable
> test to support or refute astrological claims.
And there never will be. Just like there is, and never will be, any
evidence acceptable to both sane people and flat-Earth freaks which
settles the question about the shape of the Earth.
It's futile to try to reach an agreement with people who "create
their own reality", i.e. who refuse to acknowledge the common
reality we all share.
Roger L Satterlee
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <70c1k7$63f$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
Finally we get to the root of your generalizing fears Paul....hehe..:)
Rog
Paul Schlyter
Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote in message <70c1k7$63f$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>> In article <OaxQGpe#9GA.90@upnetnews03>, HB <moo...@email.msn.com>
>>
>> You mean my mind should be so open that my brain falls out?
>
> Finally we get to the root of your generalizing fears Paul....hehe..:)
Our brain, and our ability to think, is what distinguishes us from
the animals. I don't know about you, but I surely think a mind is
a terrible thing to waste....
Hunter Rose
>I rest my case.....a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....
Living proof?
>Perhaps you need to be more open-minded and accepting of that which you do
>not fully comprehend...
RTFM.
#mxr /* They never do tho. */
--
| L'audace! Toujours l'audace! moc.gnirpsdnim@rimim=xam 6 |
| Henceforthandforthwithlyyourfoundingducksdidoscillatecheesily |
| "We're cooked, but Vive l'Empereur all the same." |
alan williams
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <70cqtc$6...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Schlyter wrote in message <70c1k7$63f$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
> >> In article <OaxQGpe#9GA.90@upnetnews03>, HB <moo...@email.msn.com>
> >>
> >> You mean my mind should be so open that my brain falls out?
> >
> > Finally we get to the root of your generalizing fears Paul....hehe..:)
>
> And?
>
> Our brain, and our ability to think, is what distinguishes us from
> the animals.
Surely, you mean "other animals"? Are you saying that homo sapiens
is not an animal species?
It's not brains and thinking that distinguish us from other animal
species, except by degree; it is our abuse of those capacities, by
the mass destruction of each other and our environment, that sets us
apart, and marks us out not as the species that will inherit the earth,
but rather as the one that will destroy it.
> I don't know about you, but I surely think a mind is
> a terrible thing to waste....
We hardly need lectures from you about wasted minds - you are a prime
example! Three or four thousand articles to alt.astrology, and only
_one_ convert so far! Isn't that a waste of space, as well as a waste
of a mind?
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
--
Alan Williams ... alco{at}pentile.demon.co.uk
Paul Schlyter
alan williams <al...@pentile.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <70dqgp$a1o$1...@merope.saaf.se>
> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>> In article <70cqtc$6...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>> Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schlyter wrote in message <70c1k7$63f$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>>>> In article <OaxQGpe#9GA.90@upnetnews03>, HB <moo...@email.msn.com>
>>>>
>>>> You mean my mind should be so open that my brain falls out?
>>>
>>> Finally we get to the root of your generalizing fears Paul....hehe..:)
>>
>> And?
>>
>> Our brain, and our ability to think, is what distinguishes us from
>> the animals.
>
> Surely, you mean "other animals"? Are you saying that homo sapiens
> is not an animal species?
humans are plants or minerals... :-) However, in everyday language,
the word "animal" is often used to mean "non-human animal".
> It's not brains and thinking that distinguish us from other animal
> species, except by degree;
BTW, since you argue that it's only a difference in "degree", could
you name several other animal species which are capable to understand
e.g. mathematics, or some other kind of logical abstract thinking?
Are there any other species which take care of their own dead? Or
which can create and control fire? At least to some extent? No?
However I did forget to mention one other thing which has been
important for us humans: our hands, and their ability to handle tools
of various kinds. Thanks to our hands, we have been able to make
several of our abstract thoughts real.
> it is our abuse of those capacities, by the mass destruction of each
> other
destruction is a possibility, but it hasn't happened yet. No other
human-sized animals are as numerous as humans. If you count wars as
"mass destructions": sorry, but humans are not unique here.
Destructions on a similar scale also happen among other animal
species.
> and our environment,
True -- and we're also the only species who even realizes there is
such a thing as "destruction of the environment", and who are
carrying out plans on how to deal with it. We realize that
destroying the environment is the same as destroying the foundation
of our own life. Do you know any other animal species with such an
insight? No? Other species destroy the environment too from time
to time, but they don't do anything about it -- they just die en
masse when they run out of food (i.e. Nature deals with THEM...).
> that sets us apart, and marks us out not as the species that will
> inherit the earth,
Christianity, i.e. the same ideology which claims humans are distinct
from animals, created in the "image of God". Do you really accept
this?
No animal species will "inherit the Earth" -- we're here for a
limited time only. In time, humans will vanish: either we might
destroy ourselves, or else we'll evolve into something different.
> but rather as the one that will destroy it.
Sorry, but here you're devoting yourself to typical New Age Babble.
Humans are not powerful enough to "destroy the Earth". Suppose we
did the worst we could do, e.g. detonating all our nuclear weapons,
and releasing all toxic chemicals we have. What would happen? Sure,
the environment would be severely disrupted, and we would probably
perish, taking a number of other species with us in this destruction.
But this disruption of the environment would only be temporary: after
only a million years, or less (this is a short time span viewed from
a geologic perspective), life would again flourish on Earth. Yes, it
would most likely be non-human life, but it would nevertheless be
life. And what happened would, to the Earth, be no worse than e.g.
that meteor strike some 65 million years ago which probably killed
off the dinosaurs, enabling the mammals, and humans, to evolve.
Over the aeons, the Earth has endured natural catastrophies much more
severe than any catastrophy mankind is able to subjec the Earth to.
And the Earth is still here .... how could we humans, with our quite
limited capabilities, then "destroy the Earth"?
>> I don't know about you, but I surely think a mind is a terrible
>> thing to waste....
>
> We hardly need lectures from you about wasted minds - you are a prime
> example! Three or four thousand articles to alt.astrology, and only
> _one_ convert so far! Isn't that a waste of space, as well as a waste
> of a mind?
about sticking your head in the sand....
And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
Sherilyn
Gail Klein
Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
Sherilyn
g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
> >--
> >Sherilyn
> >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
>
> Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
Okay, hold the fish!
Wild, unbridled sex? :)
--
Sherilyn
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ben Mabry
>
> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
> >--
> >Sherilyn
> >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
>
> Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
>
Er, Gail, how *do* you feel about Pisceans, if you do not mind telling?
A Piscean
Sherilyn
<bo...@NO.SPAM.vornet.com> writes
>On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:39:14 GMT, Ben Mabry <benm...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Gail Klein wrote:
>>>
>>> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
>>> >--
>>
>>Er, Gail, how *do* you feel about Pisceans, if you do not mind telling?
>
One doesn't. Fishsex is always bare-backed (they don't use rubbers).
--
Sherilyn
Gail Klein
> Gail Klein wrote:
> >
> > In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
> > >--
> > >Sherilyn
> > >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
> >
> > Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
> >
> > --
> > Gail Klein, NCGR-I
> > g...@panix.com
>
> Er, Gail, how *do* you feel about Pisceans, if you do not mind telling?
>
> A Piscean
Ben: you, Einstein, George Harrison, and "Jesus is just alright
with me"!! ;)
Gail Klein, NCGR-I
g...@panix.com
Gail Klein
>In article <717b2t$c...@panix2.panix.com>,
> g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
>> >--
>> >Sherilyn
>> >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
>>
>> Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
>...
>Okay, hold the fish!
>Wild, unbridled sex? :)
Toss in a tankful of love, and that sounds pretty good to me, Sher. :)
>--
>Sherilyn
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bob Officer
>Gail Klein wrote:
>>
>> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >sherilymn wrote:
>> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
>> >--
>
>Er, Gail, how *do* you feel about Pisceans, if you do not mind telling?
I want to know how one bridles a fish... ?
Bob Officer
Skepticult® # 105-757897-285
High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
Tyler of the Grand Order of the 'Evil' ILK
Trainer of "Overseers" in alt.paranormal
Official Cohooter (TM) #23
Houndmaster, Skepticult Cancellation Hunters
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission
in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited.
All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed
subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.
Ben Mabry
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Ben Mabry wrote:
>
> > Gail Klein wrote:
> > >
> > > In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > >--
> > > >Sherilyn
> > > >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
> > >
> > > Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
> > >
> >
>
> Ben: you, Einstein, George Harrison, and "Jesus is just alright
> with me"!! ;)
>
> Gail Klein, NCGR-I
> g...@panix.com
Wow! (Not *all of us Pisceans are as visionary as those three
luminaries! What stellar company you pair me with! *Blush*)
Sherilyn
writes
>In <717qsg$2q3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>writes:
>
>>In article <717b2t$c...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> In <Yjx13CAB...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> >Wild, unbridled fishsex?
>>> >--
>>> >Sherilyn
>>> >http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
>>>
>>> Now, Sherilyn, please... you know how I feel about Pisceans! :)
>>Okay, hold the fish!
>
>>Wild, unbridled sex? :)
>
>Toss in a tankful of love, and that sounds pretty good to me, Sher. :)
We can't manufacture love; couldn't get the parts. Bring your own and
share it.
--
Sherilyn
So call me "pollyanna" and have done with it!
alan williams
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <9810280...@pentile.demon.co.uk>,
> alan williams <al...@pentile.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <70dqgp$a1o$1...@merope.saaf.se>
> > pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
...
> >> Our brain, and our ability to think, is what distinguishes us from
> >> the animals.
> >
> > Surely, you mean "other animals"? Are you saying that homo sapiens
> > is not an animal species?
>
> Of course you're right, and of course I didn't want to argue that
> humans are plants or minerals... :-) However, in everyday language,
> the word "animal" is often used to mean "non-human animal".
>
> > It's not brains and thinking that distinguish us from other animal
> > species, except by degree;
>
> Well, that difference in "degree" is *quite* important, isn't it ???
>
> BTW, since you argue that it's only a difference in "degree", could
> you name several other animal species which are capable to understand
> e.g. mathematics, or some other kind of logical abstract thinking?
A recent mathematical example would be the experiments suggesting
that monkeys have an abstract understanding of numbers up to nine
(so far), which is roughly equivalent to a one-year old human child.
Come to think of it, aren't there are still some remote human
cultures where counting consists of "one, two, many" :)
> Are there any other species which take care of their own dead?
I see no relevance of this to brains and thinking ability. Most animal
species, however, are predated; there are no dead to be taken care of,
they've been eaten by the predator.
> Or which can create and control fire? At least to some extent? No?
>
> However I did forget to mention one other thing which has been
> important for us humans: our hands, and their ability to handle tools
> of various kinds. Thanks to our hands, we have been able to make
> several of our abstract thoughts real.
That is correct, but to a point. It is our opposable thumb - which
the other primates lack - which gives us such manual dexterity.
However the other primates do make limited use of tools - stones,
used as found, for cracking nuts; twigs, stripped down, for
extracting food from holes and crevices; and branches, brandished
as weapons - and thrown, ineffectively, because an accurate grip
is impossible without the opposable thumb.
And in addition to that, our upright gait has enabled a widening
of the human female pelvis, which in turn allowed a larger cranial
capacity at birth.
> > it is our abuse of those capacities, by the mass destruction of each
> > other
>
> Sorry, but here you're jumping your conclusions. Yes, this mass
> destruction is a possibility, but it hasn't happened yet.
No I'm not. I said mass destruction, not total destruction.
30 million Russian dead in WW2 was mass destruction. Hitler's
genocide against the Jews was mass destruction. Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were mass destruction.
> No other
> human-sized animals are as numerous as humans. If you count wars as
> "mass destructions": sorry, but humans are not unique here.
> Destructions on a similar scale also happen among other animal
> species.
Do tell me more ... without making my point for me, of course.
> > and our environment,
>
> True -- and we're also the only species who even realizes there is
> such a thing as "destruction of the environment", and who are
> carrying out plans on how to deal with it. We realize that
> destroying the environment is the same as destroying the foundation
> of our own life. Do you know any other animal species with such an
> insight? No? Other species destroy the environment too from time
> to time, but they don't do anything about it -- they just die en
> masse when they run out of food (i.e. Nature deals with THEM...).
Humans also die en masse when they run out of food. Have you heard
of the Sudan? Ethiopa? Irish potato famine?
> > that sets us apart, and marks us out not as the species that will
> > inherit the earth,
>
> The very concept of "inheriting the Earth" originates from
> Christianity, i.e. the same ideology which claims humans are distinct
> from animals, created in the "image of God". Do you really accept
> this?
Now you're arguing with yourself here; if you recall, I entered
this discussion to make the opposite point, by asserting that the
difference is one of degree.
> No animal species will "inherit the Earth" -- we're here for a
> limited time only. In time, humans will vanish: either we might
> destroy ourselves, or else we'll evolve into something different.
Or we might learn to protect and control our environment,
without destroying it. But I fear the latter is more likely.
> > but rather as the one that will destroy it.
>
> LOL....
>
> Sorry, but here you're devoting yourself to typical New Age Babble.
You can LOL as much as you like, but this is no laughing matter,
and it's certainly not New Age Babble. Some 1,700 of the world's
leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in
the sciences, take the same view, which they expressed in a warning
to the world issued in 1992:
"We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community,
hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our
stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human
misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be ??
irretrievably mutilated."
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human
activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment
and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices
put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the
plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will
be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes
are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring
about. The environments is suffering critical stress. ..."
You can read the rest of their warning at http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm .
> Humans are not powerful enough to "destroy the Earth". Suppose we
> did the worst we could do, e.g. detonating all our nuclear weapons,
> and releasing all toxic chemicals we have.
...
> Over the aeons, the Earth has endured natural catastrophies much more
> severe than any catastrophy mankind is able to subjec the Earth to.
> And the Earth is still here .... how could we humans, with our quite
> limited capabilities, then "destroy the Earth"?
Of course I don't mean physical destruction of the planet, but
of the global ecosystem that supports life on the planet. This
is happening daily before our eyes. In England we have lost more
than half our forest in the last 40 years and there are many worse
examples elsewhere. Look at Indonesia last summer, cloaked in smog
from burning forests, and the Orang Utang populaton devastated.
Or China recently, catastrophic flooding on an unheard of scale,
caused principally by complete deforestation of the upper river
valleys by uncontrolled logging; with the result that China is
about to become become a net importer of rice.
> >> I don't know about you, but I surely think a mind is a terrible
> >> thing to waste....
> >
> > We hardly need lectures from you about wasted minds - you are a prime
> > example! Three or four thousand articles to alt.astrology, and only
> > _one_ convert so far! Isn't that a waste of space, as well as a waste
> > of a mind?
>
> You assume nobody "converts" just because you don't see it? Talk
> about sticking your head in the sand....
You mean you've got your own secret group of cahooters? And all
except Stella have gone underground, ready for the great day
when they will all rise up, astrology will be overthrown, and
the earth will be spherical once again?
> And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
> of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
I am surprised they managed to stay awake long enough to tell you
anything :) Argument by analogy is not critical thinking, neither
is argument by mis-representation of your opponent's viewpoint; and
you seem to be addicted to both of these bad habits. Which is why
I don't argue with you very often :)
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
>
anonym™
>
> In article <716iaf$ian$1...@merope.saaf.se>
> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
SNIP!
>
> > And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
> > of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
>
> I am surprised they managed to stay awake long enough to tell you
> anything :)
I know I can't (stay awake).
>Argument by analogy is not critical thinking,
Yet you do it frequently.
> neither
> is argument by mis-representation of your opponent's viewpoint
Which you rely on heavily.
>; and
> you seem to be addicted to both of these bad habits.
As do you.
> Which is why
> I don't argue with you very often :)
But since not many others are paying attention to your blather recently
you'll settle for any conversation you can make.
Stella
I shall just like to point out I am *not* one of
Schlyter's cahooter's - we both still stand for
completely different things. Paul did not
"convert" me. I simply do not believe that
astrology works in the way I thought it did,
therefore I do not argue it's validity anymore. I
still study astrology, however, because I still
find it very interesting. I am a sceptic,
therefore I will not stand for bullshit spewed by
anti-astrology crusaders and astro-babblers alike.
>
> > And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
> > of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
>
> I am surprised they managed to stay awake long enough to tell you
> anything :)
In my innocent early days of usenet I sent Paul
Schlyter an email telling him I appreciated my
discussions with him - I also told him I liked his
website etc. and asked him a few friendly
questions about the solar eclipse in 1999.
I received no reply.
P.S. Alan, I'll see you in the Valleys,
ser-ddewin :-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Stella Hill
Sceptic Astrologer and Official Cahooter™
-------------------------------------------------------
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of
the essential things about rationality."
-Bertrand Russell-
Paul Schlyter
Stella <cas.e...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
>alan williams wrote:
>>
>> In article <716iaf$ian$1...@merope.saaf.se>
>> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>>> You assume nobody "converts" just because you don't see it? Talk
>>> about sticking your head in the sand....
>>
>> You mean you've got your own secret group of cahooters?
here, not me !!!!
>> And all except Stella have gone underground, ready for the great day
>> when they will all rise up, astrology will be overthrown, and
>> the earth will be spherical once again?
> I shall just like to point out I am *not* one of Schlyter's
> cahooter's - we both still stand for completely different things.
> Paul did not "convert" me.
though. Or did you lie to me about that?
> I simply do not believe that astrology works in the way I thought
> it did,
As an art form? As entertainment? As a method to bilk money from
the innocent public? I can agree with all that...
Or do you think it works in any other way? Please elaborate...
> therefore I do not argue it's validity anymore.
interesting?
> I still study astrology, however, because I still find it very
> interesting. I am a sceptic, therefore I will not stand for bullshit
> spewed by anti-astrology crusaders and astro-babblers alike.
the facts?
>>> And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
>>> of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
>>
>> I am surprised they managed to stay awake long enough to tell you
>> anything :)
>
> telling him I appreciated my discussions with him - I also told him I
> liked his website etc. and asked him a few friendly questions about
> the solar eclipse in 1999.
>
> I received no reply.
again, I promise I'll answer -- in a friendly way.
Stella
>
> In article <363AE661...@cableol.co.uk>,
> Stella <cas.e...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> :-) ... as I said, YOU're the one assuming things here.....
>
> > I shall just like to point out I am *not* one of Schlyter's
> > cahooter's - we both still stand for completely different things.
> > Paul did not "convert" me.
>
> It appears I made you change your mind about one specific thing
> though. Or did you lie to me about that?
Nobody *makes* me change my mind, and I do not
lie.
>
> > I simply do not believe that astrology works in the way I thought
> > it did,
>
> Then HOW do you think it works?
I do not think it works - I do not believe
anymore. I have already told you this.
>
> As an art form? As entertainment? As a method to bilk money from
> the innocent public? I can agree with all that...
>
> Or do you think it works in any other way? Please elaborate...
>
> > therefore I do not argue it's validity anymore.
>
> Why not? Do you think the question about its validity isn't
> interesting?
I cannot argue for something I do not believe.
>
> > I still study astrology, however, because I still find it very
> > interesting. I am a sceptic, therefore I will not stand for bullshit
> > spewed by anti-astrology crusaders and astro-babblers alike.
>
> I agree that you should ignore the bullshit here. But what about
> the facts?
I never said I ignore the facts.
>
>
> >>> And even if there are many I don't "convert", I still induce an amount
> >>> of critical thinking among many of them. Several have told me this.
> >>
> >> I am surprised they managed to stay awake long enough to tell you
> >> anything :)
> >
> > In my innocent early days of usenet I sent Paul Schlyter an email
> > telling him I appreciated my discussions with him - I also told him I
> > liked his website etc. and asked him a few friendly questions about
> > the solar eclipse in 1999.
> >
> > I received no reply.
>
> If so, that must have been an oversight from my part. If you ask me
> again, I promise I'll answer -- in a friendly way.
A bit like this post?
Paul Schlyter
Stella <cas.e...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <363AE661...@cableol.co.uk>,
>> Stella <cas.e...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> :-) ... as I said, YOU're the one assuming things here.....
>>
>>> I shall just like to point out I am *not* one of Schlyter's
>>> cahooter's - we both still stand for completely different things.
>>> Paul did not "convert" me.
>>
>> It appears I made you change your mind about one specific thing
>> though. Or did you lie to me about that?
>
> Nobody *makes* me change my mind, and I do not lie.
>>> I simply do not believe that astrology works in the way I thought
>>> it did,
>>
>> Then HOW do you think it works?
>
> I do not think it works - I do not believe anymore. I have already
> told you this.
I thought it did", one gets the impression you believe it works in
some other way. And now you say you don't think it works at all.
Wouldn't it then have been better to say "I simply do not believe
that astrology works", skipping "in the way I thought it did" ?
>> As an art form? As entertainment? As a method to bilk money from
>> the innocent public? I can agree with all that...
>>
>> Or do you think it works in any other way? Please elaborate...
>>
>>> therefore I do not argue it's validity anymore.
>>
>> Why not? Do you think the question about its validity isn't
>> interesting?
>
> I cannot argue for something I do not believe.
>>> In my innocent early days of usenet I sent Paul Schlyter an email
>>> telling him I appreciated my discussions with him - I also told him I
>>> liked his website etc. and asked him a few friendly questions about
>>> the solar eclipse in 1999.
>>>
>>> I received no reply.
>>
>> If so, that must have been an oversight from my part. If you ask me
>> again, I promise I'll answer -- in a friendly way.
>
> A bit like this post?
questions.
Sherilyn
<pau...@merope.saaf.se> writes
>
>When you say "I simply do not believe that astrology works in the way
>I thought it did", one gets the impression you believe it works in
>some other way.
I can't help feeling you and Stella would be able to sort out these
semantic difficulties much quicker in real time. How about it? :)
--
Sherilyn
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
Stella
>
> In article <71hcbm$o7g$1...@merope.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
> <pau...@merope.saaf.se> writes
> >
> >When you say "I simply do not believe that astrology works in the way
> >I thought it did", one gets the impression you believe it works in
> >some other way.
> ...
> I can't help feeling you and Stella would be able to sort out these
> semantic difficulties much quicker in real time. How about it? :)
Sher,
I'm sure if Paul would care to talk to me on IRC
he wouldn't hold the opinion that I lie about my
beliefs. I will simply say to him regarding his
above question that I do *not* believe astrology
works in a scientific way, but it can be seen to
work in a totally personal way for the true
believer. This is all I meant by the sentence.
I agree that in real-time chat, these
misunderstandings are much less likely, and the
environment reminds you that you are talking to a
*real* person with *real* feelings. Something
that Usenet adherants can easily forget.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
Sherilyn
<cas.e...@cableol.co.uk> writes
>
>I agree that in real-time chat, these
>misunderstandings are much less likely, and the
>environment reminds you that you are talking to a
>*real* person with *real* feelings. Something
>that Usenet adherants can easily forget.
>
>http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
>
#catch-22 is easy enough to find on the UNDERNET. Why not give it a
try?
--
Sherilyn