True, New Astrology
Edmond H. Wollmann
original draft March 87
revised October 94 Edmond H. Wollmann
2nd edition May 97
When I began studying astrology in 1971 I was skeptical and going to
disprove it. However, any honest person who attempts this must become
aware of the corroboration between astrological symbolism and a
knowledge of self. Hence the more I studied, the more mechanistically
obvious it became that there was something there. Of course some of this
acknowledgement was knowledge of self.
The "what" of course is the argument for invalidity of cynical minds
with no experience of operational obviousness that astrology when
practiced, it reveals, since this "what" is still in the realm of the
unmeasurable (empirically). But there are many practices-even in
academia that are known to work and be valid, that no objective
measurement can determine "how."
I could see that my life often unfolded with reason, and that apparently
unconnected events and issues, were indeed connected obviously. I began
to feel that perhaps there were some serious reasons behind existence
that could be readily observable. There must be a reason, I believed,
for my own and others life experiences and needs being so different.
However, this perspective raised more questions than it answered. If I
had certain needs or characteristics as indicated by the horoscope, was
I fated to experience only these? How do I change it? What is the source
of the "cause" of the horoscope? Where is the equalizer that balances
the fact that some individuals never even hear about a religion let
alone have this one life to redeem themselves. Why does one chart have
numerous "negative" aspects and another numerous "positive"? Or both?
The chart exists AT birth, implying something "brought in."
Learning about reincarnation satisfied many of these questions. They
were due to actions I had taken in previous lives-that it was "really"
one continuos flow, broken by death and rebirth, not unlike sleep and
wake cycles during life between days. What about the fact that time is
essentially an experiential contruct and not "real"? Actually these
"lives" are all at once!
When I began counseling in 1979 I found that most person's needs and
conflicts about self worth and status or what have you, were tied
strongly to the relationship with the parents and early environment. I
correlated this with psychological need and developmental theories-much
of it presented and pioneered by Noel Tyl in "The Principles and
Practice of Astrology" a 12 volume set. With this recognition in mind I
began counseling with the idea of assisting individuals in the
recognition of this fact. That self worth, for example, is determined by
the level (or lack of it) experienced as a perceived condition in the
early environment. These beliefs are then carried forward, often in an
unconscious state and externalized in interaction with the environment.
By the early 1980s I studied with great interest the channeling of
"Seth" by Jane Roberts. Especially the volume entitled "The Nature Of
Personal Reality", The Edgar Cayce material (ARE), the approach of the
Rosicrucians, and Bashar (Darryl Anka), and the association, Kevin
Ryerson (McPhereson and John) on reality creation. Now there was a new
concern. If we create our own reality, then why was the parental
structure so influential in determining a person's reality experience?
Why, or how, did we create the horoscope that we currently have? Where
does the interaction of nurture and nature begin and end?
It is really not that hard to piece together. The horoscope reflects the
belief momentum (past and present lives combined) and the resultant
effects of such momentum, because the universe is simply idea and
concept manifestation. The parental interaction is the catalyst that is
unconsciously absorbed (and created BEFORE birth by birthtime choice and
parental choice) to manifest the best representation of the belief
structure of the identity involved. The horoscope exists before parental
interaction and must therefore be a template vibrational version of the
momentum of belief.
The constellations and planets do not impel, compel, influence, energize
or in any other way determine the identity of the individual. They
reflect the signature of the persona. One version of "All That Is" or
God, looking at itself in another way. It is all one thing manifesting
in all the ways it can-of which we are those ways. The horoscope is the
reflection of the momentum of the idea that you are at any given moment.
It is a tool to recognize (rethink or to comprehend with the conscious
mind) the idea you are and its momentum or probable outcome as an effect
of that definition. Tools of psychology, astrology or other awareness
enhancers allow us the opportunity to own the reality and redefine it
with preference through this knowledge of self.
Artisans do not "believe" or "disbelieve" in tools. They use and apply
the tool for the job at hand, and their concern is for effect and
improvement. Therefore the "proof" is in the improvements-not the tools.
An astrologer can only serve as an artisan with a tool of self
awareness. Self awareness is the only agent of change for a probable
"fate" in the mirror of mind, matter.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Š 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
anonym™
>
> The New Astrology Š 1999 Altair Publications
>
> original draft March 87
> revised October 94 Edmond H. Wollmann
> 2nd edition May 97
> When I began studying astrology in 1971
You latched onto a scam you hoped would be even better than your
subsequent real estate dealings.
Ken Anglesea
<E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
So by the Subject header your saying the old one was fake?.
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
>Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
...
D.R.Ken Anglesea™.SAN. 92-01766-048.
Neumekenologist™ S.N.I.P.
(For more Information call SAN 2995603)
http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/be4be2u/index.html
Charlotte
scientific way................O.K............ :-))
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <7ls3bf$4t0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Edmond Wollmann
>
> Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
> scientific way................O.K............ :-))
Yes, eventually it will be as it is supposed to be and "actually is" ALL
ONE THING:-)
THE INTEGRATION OF
SCIENCE AND
SPIRITUALITY
A critical level of confusion permeates the world today Our faith in
the spiritual components of life-in the vital reality of consciousness,
of values, and of God-is eroding under the relentless attack of
scientific materialism. On the one hand, we welcome the benefits
derived from a science that assumes the materialist worldview. On
the other hand, this prevailing worldview fails to satisfy our
intuitions about the meaningfulness of life.
During the past four hundred years, we have gradually adopted
the belief that science can be built only on the notion that every
thing is made of matter-of so-called atoms in the void. We have
come to accept materialism dogmatically, despite its failure to ac-
count for the most familiar experiences of our daily lives. In short,
we have an inconsistent worldview. Our predicament has fueled the
demand for a new paradigm-a unifying worldview that will integrate mind
and spirit into science. No new paradigm, however, has
surfaced.
Amit Goswami "Self Aware Universe"
That philosophy is the integral one. All truths blending in harmony, not
one truth forced paranoically.
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <7ls3bf$4t0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > The New Astrology © 1999 Altair Publications
> >© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> >Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
> >Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
anonym™
fined and put on probation as well as evicted with an Unlawful Detainer
filing on 3/6/96 wrote:
>
> Charlotte wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>
> Yes, eventually it will be as it is supposed to be and "actually is" ALL
> ONE THING:-)
>
You are "all one thing": Dishonesty
Delores knew that, didn't she?
Thomas Seers
Charlotte wrote:
>
> Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
> scientific way................O.K............ :-))
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
you. Stop spamming this group.
This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
Thomas
> >© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> >Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
> >Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
*****************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA
E-mail: Se...@astro-clinic.com
Lebanon, TN 37087
Tel (615) 453-5133 Fax (615) 453-0031
http://www.acelink.net/users/belzar/
*****************************************
Edmond Wollmann
>
> Charlotte wrote:
> >
> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>
> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
>
> I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
> convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
> you. Stop spamming this group.
>
> This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
> to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
> Thomas
No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
with predictions about OJ Simpson.
You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Thomas Seers
Ya took a deep breath and now your back with the same old, same old.
You threaten me, and say I'm the bad guy. Your head is on backwards,
using a transit in Cancer, it won't do you any good :).
As a person, never mind anything else, you are a failure.
Thomas
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Thomas Seers wrote:
> >
> > Charlotte wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
> > > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
> >
> > > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
> >
> > I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
> > convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
> > you. Stop spamming this group.
> >
> > This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
> > to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
> > Thomas
>
> No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
> abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
> I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
> custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
> off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
> every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
> with predictions about OJ Simpson.
> You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
> document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
> Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
> Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Widdershins
<arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
snip
>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>document your lack of ethics for the AFA.
What would the AFA's Ethics Committee (if there is such a thing) say
about one of their members publishing purportedly private letters
between one of its members, and a former lover/client. Are you going
to try to convince us that you never gave Susan a reading, or offered
advice based on your Astrobullshit.
I'm quite sure Susan could be prevailed upon to write the AFA and
enumerate your countless breaches of ethics. There's also the Deja.com
archives which are chock full of your ethical writings. Shall we
forward your words to the AFA?
>Like the other abusers, I say;
>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
Stop your netcopping, and attempts at retro-moderation,
and what you define as abuse will stop. But we all know
that isn't going to happen.
"When you stop pimping whores, beating your wife, abusing drugs, and
are
not forging headers." -Ed Wollmann
"She is the shitball"--Ed Wollmann.
"Now why are you continuing to cross post to metapsych you fucking
troublemaker!!!" Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Losing what you fucking idiot? You've lost it."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Inconsiderate fucking cynic." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Whoopdiedoodledaday! Cynics can post all fucking year
-but let me post a couple of remarks and whooooooaaaa!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"YOU are a sock puppet you lying piece of shit!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"And ugly as fuck to boot!!!"Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am unlike anyone you have ever met and ever will-
don't pigeon hole me you son of a bitch!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am Just analytically correct-
you are ugly as fuck inside and out."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Now whos the fucking bully asshole?" Edmond
Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Wait till we meet in person ass hole I'll rip you
a new one then too." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Snipped your 196th spam of you fucking URL I will
never go to and no one gives a shit about."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
" Get out-if you think I'll ever let go of your ass you've got
another thing coming." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"...if the son of a bitch was in front of
me he'd have some bones crushed in his skull as well" --Ed "Sensitive
hony
Counselor and Violently-Tempered Kook" Wollmann, PMAFA
"You haven't posted anything but bullshit-the difference between me nd
you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl (I was a hoodlum biker
for>years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck out of you, talk like
this-AND STILL post something of value, counsel persons and meitate on
nature, and do a piece of art to find center. You see I've been thee
done that-I CHOOSE to do this now." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.FA
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!" Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
Someone questioning Ed's repetitive plagiarism:
"Hrmm. Wonder who he stole it from?"
Ed, confessing: "Another spamming abuser of the SAME denigrating
content."
"When an abuser like you can't find a group he IS interested in to go
to and spams one he isn't." -Ed's definition of irony
"I have contacted all of my state representatives, state attorney,
district attorney for stalking and other government agencies. I am
tired of the harassment that ISPs say they don't allow and then
condone." Edmond Heinz Wollmann, paranoid idiot.
Why don't you write a book Pam? Lord knows we would all learn so much
from your brown nosing empty one-liners.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Don't confuse me with the facts. I have groupies."--Ed Wollmann.
"I guess when you stop pimping whores, molesting children, forging
headers, raping and killing people" Edmond Wollmann, unbalanced
unlicensed fraudulent non-counselor, 6/14/99
" All mail is public folks, it gets posted from server to server." -Ed
Wollmann, stupidly stumbling while trying to justify posting private
emails.
"WHat a buch of out of integrity losesers." -Ed Wollmann
"I won long ago. They just don't realize its over." -Ed the deluded
shithead
'Irrelevant, there are so many propagandic spons about me" -Ed the
numbnut
"Mine [mission] is to warn people who doesn't understand English."
-Ed "slackjaw" Wollmann
"Please act before you lose all credibility. And money damages." -Ed
Wollmann, threatening himself\\And Mike Solomon reinforces that last
point:
"You couldn't possibly be planning on
making psychology a career at some point in the future could you? I
am afraid that you lack the compassion, sensitivity, wisdom and
stability that it requires. Your fallacious and distorted thinking
processes and biases would certainly interfere with your ability to
heal anyone. You can't even understand yourself enough to heal
yourself." -Michael Solomon to Ed.
"I am an upstanding citizen you fucking moron with clients in the
clinical psychology
field, 20 years of positive results, an honor student at SDSU an
accomplished artist-among other achievments and NOTHING ELSE. Why
can't
you argue facts you senile piece of shit? " Ed, upstanding. Or is that
hatstanding? Susan said you weren't upstanding!
"...you have SHIT for brains-and I don't care if all of you admins
think what ever is funny, at the end of the day you will RUE the day
you
tried to belittle and denigrate me and my companies, canceled my
accounts thinking you would intimidate me into being an idiot like
yourself, and ignored plain good sense that anyone who does NOT have
shit for brains can see without strain or difficulty. Get it?" Ed
Wollmann, freakazoid.
"That is IT! I am going to enjoy seeing you ALL in a court of
law-where
I will tear off your heads and shit down your necks. This
time it's personal abusers. If you think you saw me angry
before THINK AGAIN! If a professional astrologer cannot be
unharrassed -in his own newsgroups while spinics abuse it
day in and day out then GODDAMN IT I am going to do
something about it. Your days are NUMBERED." -Edmond Heinz Wollmann,
kook.
"Forwarded to the state attorney general and my congressman. You
screwed
up this time buddy, this is against the law."
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan.
'98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole
Widdershins
Skepticult Member #159-904378-909
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
Pamela Gross
<arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>
>> Charlotte wrote:
>> >
>> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
>> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>>
>> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
>>
>> I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
>> convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
>> you. Stop spamming this group.
>>
>> This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
>> to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
>> Thomas
>
>No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
>abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
>I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
>custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
>off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
>every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
>with predictions about OJ Simpson.
>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
Pam
BTW a.s.c. removed per their prior request...
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com
Rheumatic Disease Web Site:
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
>abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
No, it's (not the ') called "Edie is scared and can't hold his own
in a conversation on Usenet so he whines and sends complaints".
>I never attacked you,
Liar!
>you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
>custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine,
Actually it is a moral failing of yours.
>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>document your lack of ethics for the AFA.
Having fun in that glass house, Edie?
>Like the other abusers, I say;
>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
Like always your definition of abuse isn't relevant and neither are your
complaints. You are simply a coward. I hope you enjoy being rediculed
at AFA 2000.
el...@no.spam
Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
He obviously definates it as any criticism of him or anything else
he doesn't like.
Pamela Gross
Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
alt.astrology.* groups.
But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
Seers...and more...
who do post a lot of excellent astrology. So I honestly don't get it.
And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
of all this.
If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
might get support from places he would not expect it...
but he probably doesn't.
Which is too bad
Pam
el...@no.spam
Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>He obviously defines it as any criticism of him or anything else
>>he doesn't like.
>Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
>alt.astrology.* groups.
That's what he'd like people to think. But it was never true.
>But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
>Seers...and more...
>
>who do post a lot of excellent astrology. So I honestly don't get it.
>And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
>of all this.
We wants to be worshiped. Anybody that doesn't fit that ideal is
tagged as an "abuser". He's a very insecure person.
dreammin7
said it on National Television.
Stu gatz.
Jo
Pamela Gross wrote in message <379537c7...@206.214.99.8>...
>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:30:10 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
><arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>>
>>> Charlotte wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
>>> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>>>
>>> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
>>>
>>> I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
>>> convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
>>> you. Stop spamming this group.
>>>
>>> This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
>>> to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
>>> Thomas
>>
>>No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
>>abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
>>I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
>>custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
>>off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
>>every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
>>with predictions about OJ Simpson.
>>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>>document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
>>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
>
>
>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
>
>
>
>Pam
>BTW a.s.c. removed per their prior request...
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>Mr. Seers predidicted OJ would be set free before the trial began, and he
>said it on National Television.
>Stu gatz.
>Jo
>
Seers vs Turi:
contest over? :)
Pam
T.S. won
el...@no.spam
dreammin7 <drea...@home.com> wrote:
>Mr. Seers predidicted OJ would be set free before the trial began, and he
>said it on National Television.
Turi predicted that OJ would be convicted by the sitting jury. But it
goes well with his prediction of a new Pope being elected in 1997.
dreammin7
Orion is a Beautiful Taurus from California.
Now start trying to act rational Ed.
Are you really saying those things to Mr. Seers?????/
I am sad for you.
;-\
Jo
OOooooooo I can't watch this
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <378937...@yahoo.net>...
>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>
>> Charlotte wrote:
>> >
>> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
>> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>>
>> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
>>
>> I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
>> convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
>> you. Stop spamming this group.
>>
>> This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
>> to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
>> Thomas
>
>No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
>abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
>I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
>custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
>off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
>every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
>with predictions about OJ Simpson.
>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
>Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>Oh Shit!!!!!!!!!!
>Orion is a Beautiful Taurus from California.
>Now start trying to act rational Ed.
>Are you really saying those things to Mr. Seers?????/
>I am sad for you.
> ;-\
>Jo
>OOooooooo I can't watch this
>
>
Poor old a.s.c. removed AGAIN Edmo...they asked, nicely!
Jo,
Maybe our Mr. Charm snuck out to post this gem, but don't worry
yourself. I'm sure Mr. Now will be home soon!
Hugs
Pam
have to take breaks from the closet every few mins in THE HEAT
Bob Officer
(Pamela Gross) wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:30:10 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
><arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>>
>>> Charlotte wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Interesting.........so science is starting to figure spirituality in a
>>> > scientific way................O.K............ :-))
>>>
>>> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message
>>>
>>> I am warning you for the last time spammer. I hope you are at the
>>> convention, because you will have no career left when I get done with
>>> you. Stop spamming this group.
>>>
>>> This is his age old method of applying spirituality scientific force
>>> to achieve goals, easy, huh? As I await spiritual renewal :).
>>> Thomas
>>
>>No, its called, "I am going to make sure that you are known for the
>>abuser you have been ever since I started posting here" post.
>>I never attacked you, you and your sock puppet Orion began spinning my
>>custody win of my son as some sort of legal failing of mine, and drove
>>off topic posts trying to defame me. After you did that I made sure that
>>every ignorant post you made from ego was exposed. Including your errors
>>with predictions about OJ Simpson.
>>You cannot stop harassing me, so I continue to complain to your ISPs and
>>document your lack of ethics for the AFA. Like the other abusers, I say;
>>Stop your abuse and complaints stop. Very simple.
>
>
>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
Abuse is anything with questions his authority...
it is why he wrote his book. not to help people but, in his twisted
mind, authority is part and parcle of author... (hint his fixation
with king authur, and arcturus).
>BTW a.s.c. removed per their prior request...
Great I have been trying to remember the header thingie too.
thestudent:Thismanisworking,ofcourse.Probablymorethanonejob,oratleast
afull-timejobplusademandinghobby,ortwo,orthree.withHe'llmakelove
toyouwhenheisfinishedeating,butthatcouldbeawhile.OTOHyoudon'twanta
hungryandcrankycrabinyourbed,sohelphimstuffhisfacefirstrising
Edmond Wollmann
>
> Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Jul 1999 00:45:51 -0000, el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > >Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
> > >>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
> > >
> > >he doesn't like.
> >
> >
> > Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
> > alt.astrology.* groups.
> >
>
> > But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
> > Seers...and more...
> >
> > who do post a lot of excellent astrology.
>
>
> > So I honestly don't get it.
> > And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
> > of all this.
> >
>
> > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
> > might get support from places he would not expect it...
> > but he probably doesn't.
> >
> > Which is too bad
> > Pam
> >
> 'cept himself.
And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
discussing astrology, problems remain.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Keera A. Fox
Thank you!
--
****** Keera in Norway ******
** Think big. Shrink to fit. **
** http://home.sol.no/~keera **
el...@no.spam
Keera A. Fox <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
You are correct!
Kevin Burnett
<arctu...@yahoo.net> blathered:
>Keera A. Fox wrote:
>>
>> Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 12 Jul 1999 00:45:51 -0000, el...@no.spam wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article <379537c7...@206.214.99.8>,
>> > >Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>> > >>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
>> > >
>> > >He obviously definates it as any criticism of him or anything else
>> > >he doesn't like.
>> >
>> >
>> > Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
>> > alt.astrology.* groups.
>> >
>>
>> > Seers...and more...
>> >
>> > who do post a lot of excellent astrology.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> > So I honestly don't get it.
>> > And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
>> > of all this.
>> >
>> Like my Grandma (yeah, her) says, some people just love to fight.
>>
>> > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
>> > might get support from places he would not expect it...
>> > but he probably doesn't.
>> >
>> > Which is too bad
>> > Pam
>> >
>> Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
>> 'cept himself.
>
>discussing astrology, problems remain.
[translation]
As long as people keep disagreeing with me, I will continue to whine.
--
Kevin Burnett k...@catnip.org
Pam's Lynch Mob Member #666
http://www.catnip.org http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk
"I see you have made yourself a brand new life
Such a cool blue star with a bright new shine
I see you wearing your checkered past just like a shining suit of gold
I know you think you look so special"
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
>discussing astrology, problems remain.
You mean as long as you are a crybaby and can't participate in discussions
where you might have to face criticism.
So how many falcons was it that you molested in violation of state
and federal law, Edie?
anonym™
>
> Keera A. Fox wrote:
> >
...
> > >
> > I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
> >
> > > But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
> > > Seers...and more...
> > >
> > > who do post a lot of excellent astrology.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > So I honestly don't get it.
> > > And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
> > > of all this.
> > >
> > Like my Grandma (yeah, her) says, some people just love to fight.
> >
> > > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
> > > might get support from places he would not expect it...
> > > but he probably doesn't.
> > >
> > > Which is too bad
> > > Pam
> > >
> > Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
> > 'cept himself.
>
> discussing astrology,
Problem is, Ed, you file every disagreement under "denigrating me".
Learn how to take criticism. You'll find you play and work with others
better that way.
>problems remain.
Ed, your problems are so deeply ingrained you need a frontal lobotomy to
fix them.
It's sad when you have all that natural aggression and no testosterone
to do anything about it.
Bob Officer
(Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jul 1999 00:45:51 -0000, el...@no.spam wrote:
>>
>> >In article <379537c7...@206.214.99.8>,
>> >Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>> >>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
>> >
>> >He obviously definates it as any criticism of him or anything else
>> >he doesn't like.
>>
>>
>> Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
>> alt.astrology.* groups.
>>
>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
actions.
>> But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
>> Seers...and more...
>>
>> who do post a lot of excellent astrology.
>
>Thank you!
I want to add my two bits here too...
>> So I honestly don't get it.
>> And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
>> of all this.
>>
>Like my Grandma (yeah, her) says, some people just love to fight.
like a family get together...
>> If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
>> might get support from places he would not expect it...
>> but he probably doesn't.
>>
>> Which is too bad
>> Pam
>>
>Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
>'cept himself.
And he says it is all his creation... YUK!
he is a losy god!
Bob Officer
<arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>Keera A. Fox wrote:
>>
>> Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 12 Jul 1999 00:45:51 -0000, el...@no.spam wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article <379537c7...@206.214.99.8>,
>> > >Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>This is pretty incomplete until you define (dispassionately, clearly
>> > >>please if possible) what you consider to be "abuse".
>> > >
>> > >He obviously definates it as any criticism of him or anything else
>> > >he doesn't like.
>> >
>> >
>> > Originally I thought he simply wanted people to discuss astrology in
>> > alt.astrology.* groups.
>> >
>> I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>
>> > But he complains about Ken Kizer, Keera Fox, Michael Solomon, Thomas
>> > Seers...and more...
>> >
>> > who do post a lot of excellent astrology.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> > So I honestly don't get it.
>> > And that makes it hard to hope for anything constructive to come out
>> > of all this.
>> >
>> Like my Grandma (yeah, her) says, some people just love to fight.
>>
>> > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
>> > might get support from places he would not expect it...
>> > but he probably doesn't.
>> >
>> > Which is too bad
>> > Pam
>> >
>> Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
>> 'cept himself.
>
>And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
>discussing astrology, problems remain.
You admit harassing and abusing people on this news group?
you admit you are a problem?
you admit you have a problem?
GET HELP!
There are QUALIFIED COUNSELORS, at your school.
Bob Officer
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.
The new and approved aam charters can be found at following fine sites:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/9669/
http://www.microserve.com/~dave/aam_charter.html
http://www3.iconz.co.nz/bill/officialaamcharter.htm
http://members.aol.com/macabrus/officialaamcharter.html
http://www.lart.com/officialaamcharter.html
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/aamcharter.html
http://www.databasix.com/officialcharters/alt/astrology/metapsych/charter.html
Paul Schlyter
Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>
>
> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
> actions.
on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
Ken Anglesea
wrote:
>In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>>
>>>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>
>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>> actions.
>
>Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
No,but it helps.
If Ed was nicer to people instead of talking down AT them,he may get
some nicer responses.
Pam has offered Ed a hand in friendship,Ed bit it.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>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
...
D.R.Ken Anglesea™.SAN. 92-01766-048.
Woo Woo in Practice.
Neumekenologist™ S.N.I.P.
(For more Information call SAN 2995603)
http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/be4be2u/index.html
Bob Officer
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>>
>>>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>
>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>> actions.
>
>Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
As an "astrologer" (that isn't my label but one hung on be by PZ) ,
who has a good understanding of the "art of the cold read". It takes a
personality which allows people to relax and open up before you start
seeing peoples reactions to what you are saying or writing.
The cold read "tree" starts with vague and fuzzy statements and
depending on what the reactions are. the reader must what or listen to
answers, then the reader changes the reading. Stay noncommittal as
long as posible.
1 Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285 | High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
2 Tyler of the Order of the ILK | Official Cahooter(TM)#23| Warning! Reproduction without
3 the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited.All
4 claims of copyright according to the BERN & UCC Agreements are held by the writers.
Paul Schlyter
Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 1999 21:54:23 +0200, in alt.astrology pau...@merope.saaf.se
> (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>>Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>>
>>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>>> actions.
>>
>>Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>>on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>>very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>>does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
>
> As an "astrologer" (that isn't my label but one hung on be by PZ) ,
> who has a good understanding of the "art of the cold read". It takes a
> personality which allows people to relax and open up before you start
> seeing peoples reactions to what you are saying or writing.
>
> The cold read "tree" starts with vague and fuzzy statements and
> depending on what the reactions are. the reader must what or listen to
> answers, then the reader changes the reading. Stay noncommittal as
> long as posible.
ability to cold read, and has nothing to do with his knowledge on
e.g. how to set up a horoscope? By this definition, is e.g. James
Randi an astrologer or not? Most likely he has this ability to
cold read, hasn't he? And that would qualify him as an "astrologer",
according to your definition here.
--
Bob Officer
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:
Yep. you use some nearly universal traits which people recognize in
themselves... mix in a bit of scientic sounding blather, some
psycho-babble, a little old time superstitions and you have yourself a
new age astrologer.
Randi would be a natural...
As anyone that wants to be, is one.
Edmond H. Wollmann
An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
whether the person is present or not. The interview allows the counselor
to establish the level of the psychic understanding the counselor now
has. This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
astrologer uses the chart.
anonym™
No he can't.
The interview allows the counselor
> to establish the level of the psychic understanding the counselor now
> has.
That doesn't make sense, dweeb.
> This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
> astrologer uses the chart.
The same nonsense goes for psychologists? I have to agree with you there!
Bob Officer
>whether the person is present or not. The interview allows the counselor
>to establish the level of the psychic understanding the counselor now
>has. This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
>astrologer uses the chart.
Thusly, you must rely on the cold read.
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> > Keera A. Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
> > > > might get support from places he would not expect it...
> > > > but he probably doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Which is too bad
> > > > Pam
> > > >
> > > Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
> > > 'cept himself.
> >
> > And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
> > discussing astrology, problems remain.
>
> will not engage in a discussion of any kind with someone I know to be
> sick. So...
>
> *PLONK*
>
> (Please note the use of colon.)
Is this a promise or a threat?
anonym™
>
> Keera A. Fox wrote:
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Keera A. Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
> > > > > might get support from places he would not expect it...
> > > > > but he probably doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is too bad
> > > > > Pam
> > > > >
> > > > Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
> > > > 'cept himself.
> > >
> > > And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
> > > discussing astrology, problems remain.
> >
> > Ed, I have come to another conclusion about you: You are mentally ill. I
> > will not engage in a discussion of any kind with someone I know to be
> > sick. So...
> >
> > *PLONK*
> >
> > (Please note the use of colon.)
>
> Is this a promise or a threat?
Because you just made Ed's mouth water. (He's into choco-sports)
Keera A. Fox
Keera A. Fox
> In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
> Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
> > (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
> >
> >>I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
> >
> > you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
> > mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
> > actions.
>
> Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
> on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
> very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
> does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
>
Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers. That doesn't
make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
Ken Anglesea
>Is this a promise or a threat?
What part of "PLONK" don't you understand?.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
>Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
>http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Gojira
>Ed, I have come to another conclusion about you: You are mentally ill.
What was your first clue? }:>
>I will not engage in a discussion of any kind with someone I know to be
>sick. So...
>*PLONK*
>(Please note the use of colon.)
As long as it isn't Ed's colon.
ash
['It's a bit rummagy, isn't it, fucknuts?']
--
_________________________________________________________________
6 One ...that which we are, we are. 2 ash
freerandomnumbersnoocelotsforanybodydonteattheposesrepeatsinfinit
"This damn tree leaks."
Gojira
>Keera A. Fox wrote:
>> Ed, I have come to another conclusion about you: You are mentally ill. I
>> will not engage in a discussion of any kind with someone I know to be
>> sick. So...
>> *PLONK*
>> (Please note the use of colon.)
Gee, Elmo, you just can't cope with them wimminz, can ya?
Did money smack yer little winky, EDDDDDIIIIIEEEE?
Are we a wittle bit over-identified with Anthony Perkins, hrmmm?
ash
['Get a room, fucknuts!'
Paul Schlyter
Edmond H. Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> I see -- so whether someone is an "astrologer" depends only on his
>> ability to cold read, and has nothing to do with his knowledge on
>> e.g. how to set up a horoscope? By this definition, is e.g. James
>> Randi an astrologer or not? Most likely he has this ability to
>> cold read, hasn't he? And that would qualify him as an "astrologer",
>> according to your definition here.
>
> An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
> whether the person is present or not.
> The interview allows the counselor to establish the level of the
> psychic understanding the counselor now has.
usually the only means he can obtain information about the subject.
> This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
> astrologer uses the chart.
matters, and don't pretend to be able to obtian extra information
through some "magical" means which really provides no information.
Paul Schlyter
non-astrologer either. Don't you agree?
Edmann Wollmond
> Keera A. Fox wrote:
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Keera A. Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If he did have some kind of legitimate basis for his complaints, he
> > > > > might get support from places he would not expect it...
> > > > > but he probably doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is too bad
> > > > > Pam
> > > > >
> > > > Look, he's over 18 and an adult, ain't nobody responsible for him now
> > > > 'cept himself.
> > >
> > > And as long as you abusers are obsessed with denigrating me rather than
> > > discussing astrology, problems remain.
> >
> > Ed, I have come to another conclusion about you: You are mentally ill. I
> > will not engage in a discussion of any kind with someone I know to be
> > sick. So...
> >
> > *PLONK*
> >
> > (Please note the use of colon.)
>
> Is this a promise or a threat?
Neither. I've come to realize that you are actually entertaining!
So, got any astrology to discuss?
--
*** Keera in Norway ***
Think Big. Shrink to fit.
Edmond H. Wollmann
> In article <378CC1...@bigfoot.com>,
> Edmond H. Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >> I see -- so whether someone is an "astrologer" depends only on his
> >> ability to cold read, and has nothing to do with his knowledge on
> >> e.g. how to set up a horoscope? By this definition, is e.g. James
> >> Randi an astrologer or not? Most likely he has this ability to
> >> cold read, hasn't he? And that would qualify him as an "astrologer",
> >> according to your definition here.
> > An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
> > whether the person is present or not.
> Nosense, Eddie -- numerous blind tests have shown that this is NOT the case!
I cannot speak for constructs that are improperly set up, or for
astrologers who are incompetant.
> > The interview allows the counselor to establish the level of the
> > psychic understanding the counselor now has.
> This interview is very essential to the astrologer, since it's
> usually the only means he can obtain information about the subject.
What about psychologists?
> > This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
> > astrologer uses the chart.
> Except that psychologists plays a fair game: they admit the interview
> matters, and don't pretend to be able to obtian extra information
> through some "magical" means which really provides no information.
I didn't say it didn't matter, where did I say this?
"You are inventing all sorts of feelings for me such as I have never
really had at all, and then getting cross with me for having them. That
is not a very amiable proceeding, is it?" Murasaki Shikaba, Japanese
Poet, (974-1031)
--
Edmann Wollmond
> In article <1duyuwd.19e...@ti21a27-0112.dialup.online.no>,
> Keera A. Fox <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
> >>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
> >>>
> >>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
> >>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
> >>> actions.
> >>
> >> Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
> >> on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
> >> very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
> >> does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
> >
> > Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers. That doesn't
> > make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
>
> It doesn't make him an astrologer, sure -- but it doens't make him a
> non-astrologer either. Don't you agree?
>
So someone who merely quotes medical literature should not be considered
a non-doctor? Naw, doesn't work for me.
Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
astrologer.
Edmond H. Wollmann
That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Edmann Wollmond
No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
Edmond H. Wollmann
I'll discuss with whoever I wish. And no, I don't "have" to do anything.
anonym™
>
> Edmann Wollmond wrote:
...
> >
> > Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
> > participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
> > believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
> > astrologer.
>
> That's very easy to dispell.
But, not so easy to spell, is it?
>Plenty of real astrology here;
>
> http://www.astrocons
SPAM snipped
anonym™
>
>
> What about psychologists?
>
You aren't one.
Your piece of shit book implies you are, but at the time you only had a
two-year Associate's Degree. That's two years shy of a Bachelors'
Degree, and a Psychologist needs to get a DOCTORATE and even then a
couple years of training before they can practice their craft under
proper license.
You fucking fraud.
anonym™
>
> Edmann Wollmond wrote:
> >
....
> > >
> > > That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
> > >
> > > http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
> >
> > No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
> > discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
> > alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
> > discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
>
> I'll discuss with whoever I wish. And no, I don't "have" to do anything.
Spoken like a true crybaby three year old.
How does it serve you to be such an immature sociopath?
Bob Officer
Wollmann" <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <378CC1...@bigfoot.com>,
>> Edmond H. Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> >> I see -- so whether someone is an "astrologer" depends only on his
>> >> ability to cold read, and has nothing to do with his knowledge on
>> >> e.g. how to set up a horoscope? By this definition, is e.g. James
>> >> Randi an astrologer or not? Most likely he has this ability to
>> >> cold read, hasn't he? And that would qualify him as an "astrologer",
>> >> according to your definition here.
>
>> > An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
>> > whether the person is present or not.
>
>> Nosense, Eddie -- numerous blind tests have shown that this is NOT the case!
>
>I cannot speak for constructs that are improperly set up, or for
>astrologers who are incompetant.
You speak for one inocompetant astrologer, you, edmo...
also you can't speak for any other incompetant publisher except
yourself...
or incompetant; falconer
or motorcycle rider
or realestate agent
>> > The interview allows the counselor to establish the level of the
>> > psychic understanding the counselor now has.
>
>> This interview is very essential to the astrologer, since it's
>> usually the only means he can obtain information about the subject.
>
>What about psychologists?
>
>> > This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
>> > astrologer uses the chart.
>
>> Except that psychologists plays a fair game: they admit the interview
>> matters, and don't pretend to be able to obtian extra information
>> through some "magical" means which really provides no information.
>
>I didn't say it didn't matter, where did I say this?
IT shouldn't matter you have a natal chart. IT, the natal chart,
should be enough IF astrology worked.
The reason you need an interview is because astrology doesn't work
well enough to matter.
thestudent:Thismanisworking,ofcourse.Probablymorethanonejob,oratleast
afull-timejobplusademandinghobby,ortwo,orthree.withHe'llmakelove
toyouwhenheisfinishedeating,butthatcouldbeawhile.OTOHyoudon'twanta
hungryandcrankycrabinyourbed,sohelphimstuffhisfacefirstrising
Paul Schlyter
Edmann Wollmond <ka...@online.no> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>
>> In article <1duyuwd.19e...@ti21a27-0112.dialup.online.no>,
>> Keera A. Fox <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>> Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>>>>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>>>>
>>>>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>>>>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>>>>> actions.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>>>> on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>>>> very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>>>> does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
>>>
>>> Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers. That doesn't
>>> make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
>>
>> It doesn't make him an astrologer, sure -- but it doens't make him a
>> non-astrologer either. Don't you agree?
>
> So someone who merely quotes medical literature should not be considered
> a non-doctor? Naw, doesn't work for me.
good doctor. He's of course no researcher, but he may very well be
good at standard medical practice.
Knowing the literature well is here very important, because it will
tell you of the experience of others.
> Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
> participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
> believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
> astrologer.
Is having original thoughts a requirement for being an astrologer? If
so, there must be very few astrologers in the world...
Paul Schlyter
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <378CC1...@bigfoot.com>,
>> Edmond H. Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>>>> I see -- so whether someone is an "astrologer" depends only on his
>>>> ability to cold read, and has nothing to do with his knowledge on
>>>> e.g. how to set up a horoscope? By this definition, is e.g. James
>>>> Randi an astrologer or not? Most likely he has this ability to
>>>> cold read, hasn't he? And that would qualify him as an "astrologer",
>>>> according to your definition here.
>
>>> An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
>>> whether the person is present or not.
>
>
> I cannot speak for constructs that are improperly set up, or for
> astrologers who are incompetant.
that incompetent astrologers always are those who get tested?
Then, how come NO astrologer sets up such a test properly (= in a way
which satisfies BOTH astrologers and skeptics) and has a competent
astrologer tested? The most likely explanation is: because nobody
can do that -- and pass the test.
>>> The interview allows the counselor to establish the level of the
>>> psychic understanding the counselor now has.
>
>> This interview is very essential to the astrologer, since it's
>> usually the only means he can obtain information about the subject.
>
> What about psychologists?
important. They don't pretend some magical item will provide a
shortcut to information about the subject.
>>> This goes for psychologists who use tests in the same way the
>>> astrologer uses the chart.
>
>> Except that psychologists plays a fair game: they admit the interview
>> matters, and don't pretend to be able to obtian extra information
>> through some "magical" means which really provides no information.
>
> I didn't say it didn't matter, where did I say this?
of the interview. What you fail to realize is that the natal chart
is what's unimportant: it provides no information whatsoever, but
only serves as a means of distraction of the customer.
Keera A. Fox
> Edmann Wollmond wrote:
> >
> > Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Edmann Wollmond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
> > > > participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
> > > > believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
> > > > astrologer.
> > >
> > > That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
> > >
> > > http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
> >
> > No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
> > discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
> > alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
> > discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
>
> I'll discuss with whoever I wish. And no, I don't "have" to do anything.
No, you don't have to. Question is: Why don't you *want* to? You're an
astrologer, you're here, and yet you do not participate in the
discussions here. In the flamewars, yes (and unfortunately), but not in
the general discussion. The astrology you post is all one-way, delivered
at the door, but the delivery boy himself doesn't stay for a chat.
Why do you want to be so alone, Ed?
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> Bob Officer wrote:
>
> >IT shouldn't matter you have a natal chart. IT, the natal chart,
> >should be enough IF astrology worked.
> >
> >The reason you need an interview is because astrology doesn't work
> >well enough to matter.
>
> leads off into the cold/hot read debate.
>
> Astrology was a dry collection of facts until I applied it to my own
> chart, and then other people. I suppose that means I didn't have the
> scientific rigor to not "go native". I wasn't taught it that way. All
> the astrologers I know had to get personal.
>
> On the other hand, hearing the framework, the context, of people's
> lives helps in being able to apply the principles or patterns
> suggested in the chart.
Why do you spam alt.astrology.metapsych with off topic messages, and
then when you are actually on topic you don't post there?
Pretty revealing of your intentions isn't it?
anonym™
>
> CFA wrote:
> >
> > Bob Officer wrote:
> >
> > >IT shouldn't matter you have a natal chart. IT, the natal chart,
> > >should be enough IF astrology worked.
> > >
> > >The reason you need an interview is because astrology doesn't work
> > >well enough to matter.
> >
> > Or doesn't work well enough without the interview, which of course
> > leads off into the cold/hot read debate.
> >
> > Astrology was a dry collection of facts until I applied it to my own
> > chart, and then other people. I suppose that means I didn't have the
> > scientific rigor to not "go native". I wasn't taught it that way. All
> > the astrologers I know had to get personal.
> >
> > On the other hand, hearing the framework, the context, of people's
> > lives helps in being able to apply the principles or patterns
> > suggested in the chart.
>
> Why do you spam alt.astrology.metapsych
Why do you lie about other people spamming, Ed?
Spam isn't "postings Edmo no likee".
You're the spamming asshole, you and your buttbuddy DAN.
You even admitted being kicked off of AOl for spamming.
> with off topic messages,
The new charter, which Mindspring endorses, shitcans your definitions of
what's on-topic in a.a.m
> and
> then when you are actually on topic you don't post there?
He can posts wherever the fuck he likes, asshole?
Who gave *you* the shiny usenet Sheriff badge?
> Pretty revealing of your intentions isn't it?
Yeah, his intentions are obviouslyto post how and where he pleases,
regardless of your laughable attempts at intimidation and censorship.
Bob Officer
>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>
>>IT shouldn't matter you have a natal chart. IT, the natal chart,
>>should be enough IF astrology worked.
>>
>>The reason you need an interview is because astrology doesn't work
>>well enough to matter.
>Or doesn't work well enough without the interview, which of course
>leads off into the cold/hot read debate.
Correct...
>Astrology was a dry collection of facts until I applied it to my own
>chart, and then other people. I suppose that means I didn't have the
That makes it is cold read... it is after the fact.
>scientific rigor to not "go native". I wasn't taught it that way. All
>the astrologers I know had to get personal.
>On the other hand, hearing the framework, the context, of people's
>lives helps in being able to apply the principles or patterns
>suggested in the chart.
If astrology worked correctly the chart would/should be all you need.
It doesn't therefore, I still quest for the true astrology.
(hey edmo this is how discussions talk place. )
Bob Officer
(Edmann Wollmond) wrote:
>Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Edmann Wollmond wrote:
>> >
>> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <1duyuwd.19e...@ti21a27-0112.dialup.online.no>,
>> > > Keera A. Fox <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>> > > >> Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>> > > >>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>> > > >>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>> > > >>> actions.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>> > > >> on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>> > > >> very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>> > > >> does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
>> > > >
>> > > > Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers. That doesn't
>> > > > make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
>> > >
>> > > It doesn't make him an astrologer, sure -- but it doens't make him a
>> > > non-astrologer either. Don't you agree?
>> > >
>> > So someone who merely quotes medical literature should not be considered
>> > a non-doctor? Naw, doesn't work for me.
>> >
>> > Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
>> > participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
>> > believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
>> > astrologer.
>>
>> That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
>>
>> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
>
>No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
>discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
>alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
>discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
He can't. He does know how. Most of his stuff, is so heavely
quotinfied from the works of other people, he has no room for his own
thoughts.
Just look at his postings here. Start guessing whose works he is
paraphrasing.
Bob Officer
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <1duzyg6.16e...@ti21a22-0015.dialup.online.no>,
>Edmann Wollmond <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>
>> Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1duyuwd.19e...@ti21a27-0112.dialup.online.no>,
>>> Keera A. Fox <ka...@online.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <378b7a99...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>>> Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 00:04:37 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>>>>>> (Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep telling people: Edmond H. Wollmann is not an astrologer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you are not the only one Keera... there is a long list of people
>>>>>> mostly astrologers, that have been driven off by Edmond Heinz Wollmann
>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, Eddie is abusive, annoying, unpleasant and full of shit -- but
>>>>> on what base do you claim he's not an astrologer? Just because he's
>>>>> very annoying? Sorry, but that's not reason enough. An astrologer
>>>>> does not have to be a pleasant person, does he?
>>>>
>>>> Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers. That doesn't
>>>> make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
>>>
>>> It doesn't make him an astrologer, sure -- but it doens't make him a
>>> non-astrologer either. Don't you agree?
>>
>> So someone who merely quotes medical literature should not be considered
>> a non-doctor? Naw, doesn't work for me.
>
>If he knows his medical literature very well, he might actually be a
>good doctor. He's of course no researcher, but he may very well be
>good at standard medical practice.
You can go to him, I know a couple of people that know the medical lit
very well, they are hypochondriacs. I wouldn't not go to them.
>Knowing the literature well is here very important, because it will
>tell you of the experience of others.
>
>> Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
>> participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
>> believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
>> astrologer.
>
>Is having original thoughts a requirement for being an astrologer? If
>so, there must be very few astrologers in the world...
Being able to think, rather than regurgitate the words of other
people.
Bob Officer
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <378E0C...@netscape.net>,
>Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
Thus the astrologer practices the "art of the *cold read*..."
and astrology fails the 1st test...
1 Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285 | High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
2 Tyler of the Order of the ILK | Official Cahooter(TM)#23| Warning! Reproduction without
3 the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited.All
4 claims of copyright according to the BERN & UCC Agreements are held by the writers.
Bob Officer
Wollmann" <arctu...@nospam.net> wrote:
>CFA wrote:
>>
>> Bob Officer wrote:
>>
>> >IT shouldn't matter you have a natal chart. IT, the natal chart,
>> >should be enough IF astrology worked.
>> >
>> >The reason you need an interview is because astrology doesn't work
>> >well enough to matter.
>>
>> Or doesn't work well enough without the interview, which of course
>> leads off into the cold/hot read debate.
>>
>> Astrology was a dry collection of facts until I applied it to my own
>> chart, and then other people. I suppose that means I didn't have the
>> scientific rigor to not "go native". I wasn't taught it that way. All
>> the astrologers I know had to get personal.
>>
>> On the other hand, hearing the framework, the context, of people's
>> lives helps in being able to apply the principles or patterns
>> suggested in the chart.
>
>Why do you spam alt.astrology.metapsych with off topic messages, and
>then when you are actually on topic you don't post there?
I post to metapsych because I am delving into the psyche of the "the
astrologer". According to the currently accepted charter, as shown
below in my siggy, are on topic in aa.meta.
>Pretty revealing of your intentions isn't it?
No it is reveling you don't want to carry on an on topic discussion on
aameta.
It is true you actually posted a plan or plot to use a newsgroup to
entrap people so you could get their access revoked. Tell the truth
now, I have dejanews and nearly 3 years worth of posting saved from
this newsgroup.
What do you think about the cold read. Why do you use an interveiw and
if you do how does it change you reading of the chart?
Do you agree the chart should stand by itself, with or without an
interview? If you need a interview then the chart is nearly worthless.
and is no more than a prop in a con game. Do you disagree?
Bob Officer
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.
The new and approved aam charters can be found at following fine sites:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/9669/
http://www.microserve.com/~dave/aam_charter.html
http://www3.iconz.co.nz/bill/officialaamcharter.htm
http://members.aol.com/macabrus/officialaamcharter.html
http://www.lart.com/officialaamcharter.html
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/aamcharter.html
http://www.databasix.com/officialcharters/alt/astrology/metapsych/charter.html
Bob Officer
>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>
>>What do you think about the cold read. Why do you use an interveiw and
>>if you do how does it change you reading of the chart?
>>
>>Do you agree the chart should stand by itself, with or without an
>>interview?
>
>Why either/or? Why not both? Both add clues. The total of both still
>isn't the whole story. No psychological/metaphysical
>tool/philosophy/religion/lifestyle is.
Because of the historic claim of astrology. the chart is the
reflection of the person. In horary astrologer the "instant natal" or
"event info" becomes the total event.
>>If you need a interview then the chart is nearly worthless.
>
>This sounds like an all or nothing view of the chart. To me it
>provides an outline. I'm not good enough to know ahead of time how
>they fill in the blanks.
Well IF it isn't all or nothing then why not skip the entire chart or
do the chart after the interveiw?
>>and is no more than a prop in a con game.
>
>Why does that follow? That sounds like a question of motive more than
>the nature of the tools.
OR the motive in using a prop... <hey, I trying to attack the nothihng
here>.. as a distraction.
>>Do you disagree?
>
>If the goal of self-awareness, what's wrong with an "imperfect" system
>that does, nevertheless, give some clues.
Nothing, provided it isn't used unethically... "Astrology" is rife
with unethically people, running scams.
>Plus, astrology can be used in so many ways...
and is a fun way to study people... <I am agreeing with you>
Keera A. Fox
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:15:43 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
> (Edmann Wollmond) wrote:
>
> >Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >> That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
> >>
> >> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
> >
> >No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
> >discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
> >alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
> >discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
>
> He can't. He does know how. Most of his stuff, is so heavely
> quotinfied from the works of other people, he has no room for his own
> thoughts.
>
He has his own thoughts? You sure, now?
> Just look at his postings here. Start guessing whose works he is
> paraphrasing.
>
That's why I keep trying to get him to stop. :-)
Bob Officer
(Keera A. Fox) wrote:
>Bob Officer <bo...@NOSPAM.vornet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:15:43 +0100, in alt.astrology ka...@online.no
>> (Edmann Wollmond) wrote:
>>
>> >Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
>> >>
>> >> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
>> >
>> >No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
>> >discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
>> >alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
>> >discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
>>
>> He can't. He does know how. Most of his stuff, is so heavely
>> quotinfied from the works of other people, he has no room for his own
>> thoughts.
>>
>He has his own thoughts? You sure, now?
I hope he does... then again maybe ed is just a puppet..
>> Just look at his postings here. Start guessing whose works he is
>> paraphrasing.
>>
>That's why I keep trying to get him to stop. :-)
I just think he is not an astrologer... he is more like a parrot... he
just squawks. But I had a parrot that was boought by my great uncle.
You birds live a long time. I sometimes thought that the bird might
have know sommething.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> (Please note the use of colon.)
>Is this a promise or a threat?
Is that a non sequitur or a kook fart?
el...@no.spam
>An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
>whether the person is present or not.
Actual testing has shown that not to be true.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> > An astrologer can discern the psyche of an individaul with the chart
>> > whether the person is present or not.
>> Nosense, Eddie -- numerous blind tests have shown that this is NOT the case!
>I cannot speak for constructs that are improperly set up, or for
>astrologers who are incompetant.
Nobody ask you to speak for "constructs that are improperly set up".
>> > The interview allows the counselor to establish the level of the
>> > psychic understanding the counselor now has.
>> This interview is very essential to the astrologer, since it's
>> usually the only means he can obtain information about the subject.
>What about psychologists?
Irrelevant. We are discussing astrologers and their claims of getting
information via astrology.
--
"Yes I do, hundreds of them! Bwahahahahahahah!!!"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~wnidiffe/bamt/astrolies/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/ed-w-con.htm
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology
"Mr. Wollman's account at AzNET was cancelled due to multiple,
seemingly endless complaints about his abusive behavior in Usenet."
-- Jack Bailey
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Why do you spam alt.astrology.metapsych with off topic messages,
It isn't spam and it isn't off topic. Why do you always start whining
about peoples' posts when you are losing a discussion?
el...@no.spam
>Because, in fact, all he does is *quote* other astrologers.
Quote? I guess you could call it that. But I haven't noticed him
being very good at attributing his quotes.
>That doesn't make him an astrologer. Don't you agree?
No, that doesn't make him an astrologer.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> No, Ed, do it *here*. On alt.astrology. With *us*. Join us here in our
>> discussions. Don't post anything pre-typed. If you really want
>> alt.astrology to be full of astrology discussions, you have to actually
>> discuss - talk to and with and about - with the rest of us.
>I'll discuss with whoever I wish. And no, I don't "have" to do anything.
That's an admission that you are not an astrologer, Wollmann. Do you
have any original astrology to discuss or are you just here to plagerize
and whine?
Gojira
>That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
>http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Excuse me, the 'Creator puts no value judgements on anything and any
difference between right and wrong is what we have been taught.' (Paraquoted).
Therefore, how do you claim to have divined 'real' astrology?
Oh, and isn't abuser a kinda of judgemental word to be using for
someone who doesn't believe in right or wrong, or do you believe in right and
wrong as you, er, have been taught?
ash
['If I think about this loop much more, I'll get a headache.']
--
_________________________________________________________________
6 One ...that which we are, we are. 2 ash
freerandomnumbersnoocelotsforanybodydonteattheposesrepeatsinfinit
"This damn tree leaks."
Bob Officer
>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:14:54 GMT, in alt.astrology CFA wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Officer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What do you think about the cold read. Why do you use an interveiw and
>>>>if you do how does it change you reading of the chart?
>>>>
>>>>Do you agree the chart should stand by itself, with or without an
>>>>interview?
>>>
>>>Why either/or? Why not both? Both add clues. The total of both still
>>>isn't the whole story. No psychological/metaphysical
>>>tool/philosophy/religion/lifestyle is.
>>
>>Because of the historic claim of astrology. the chart is the
>>reflection of the person. In horary astrologer the "instant natal" or
>>"event info" becomes the total event.
>
>I was never taught that it would be possible to tell everything from a
>birth or event chart. It was always about finding clues...
I see, Much as I was taught!
>>>>If you need a interview then the chart is nearly worthless.
>>>
>>>This sounds like an all or nothing view of the chart. To me it
>>>provides an outline. I'm not good enough to know ahead of time how
>>>they fill in the blanks.
>>
>>Well IF it isn't all or nothing then why not skip the entire chart or
>>do the chart after the interveiw?
>
>Helps to use it when looking for clues.
I see... Sherlock..
>>>>and is no more than a prop in a con game.
>>>
>>>Why does that follow? That sounds like a question of motive more than
>>>the nature of the tools.
>>
>>OR the motive in using a prop... <hey, I trying to attack the nothihng
>>here>.. as a distraction.
>
>Well, I'm assuming a generally positive motive, because the other is a
>conversation about ethics, not technique.
We have talked about that at other times have we not?
>>>>Do you disagree?
>>>
>>>If the goal of self-awareness, what's wrong with an "imperfect" system
>>>that does, nevertheless, give some clues.
>>
>>Nothing, provided it isn't used unethically... "Astrology" is rife
>>with unethically people, running scams.
>
>No doubt, like "the" church, politics, big business, etc. But we don't
>discard those systems, because they also provide many positive things.
Church and big bussiness harbors some very unethical people, and
polictics is another can of worms.
>>>Plus, astrology can be used in so many ways...
>>
>>and is a fun way to study people... <I am agreeing with you>
>
>And I agree with you!
Thanks Ken...
Edmo this is how two people with different opinions can talk, agree on
some points and disagree on other points. Discuss points, and still be
friendly.
Neiher Ken nor I have acused each other of crimes called each othar
names, nor tried to get each others accounts pulled.
But then we are two mature people.
el...@no.spam
>> participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
>> believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
>> astrologer.
>That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
He said original, kook.
Keera A. Fox
> In article <378E15...@netscape.net>,
> Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
I wrote this:
> >> Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
> >> participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
> >> believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
> >> astrologer.
>
> >That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
>
> He said original, kook.
"She", dear, "she". At least last time I looked. ;-)
--
*** Keera in Norway ***
Think Big. Shrink to fit.
anonym™
>
> <el...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > In article <378E15...@netscape.net>,
> > Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> I wrote this:
>
> > >> Ed doesn't have one original thought in his head and I haven't seen him
> > >> participate in any ordinary *astrology* discussions here. Leads me to
> > >> believe he doesn't really know any astrology, therefore, not an
> > >> astrologer.
> >
> > >That's very easy to dispell. Plenty of real astrology here;
> >
> > He said original, kook.
>
> "She", dear, "she". At least last time I looked. ;-)
>
anonym™
out-of-integrity activity, Luci wakes up and stumbles onto the track.
Always wiping up the rear, aren't you, Luci?
http://www.noeltyl.com/cgibin/index.cgi?read=32
---------------------------
Re: Counseling and maturity
Posted by Rebecca on Wednesday, 21 July 1999, at 1:07 p.m., in
response to Re: Counseling and maturity, posted by Nymmie on
Wednesday, 21 July 1999, at
11:39 a.m.
Dear Mr Tile.
This is getting out of hand.
All these people are trolling your friend Edmond Wollman.
HTH.
--------------------------------
and
(this time trying to foist the blame onto Raoul Xemblinosky)
http://www.noeltyl.com/cgibin/index.cgi?read=33
-------------------------
Re: Counseling and maturity
Posted by Rebbecca on Wednesday, 21 July 1999, at 1:11 p.m., in
response to Re: Counseling and maturity, posted by Rebecca on
Wednesday, 21 July 1999, at
1:07 p.m.
YHBT
Oooops, I forgot last time
---------------------------