Lazzarini creator of Budweiser sock puppets, liar, in major denial!
Edmond Wollmann
LazzDildo wrote:
> Ed, in major denial, wrote:
> >I was never a spammer.
> Sure you were! DejaNews lists HUNDREDS of identical posts by you!
Yours are identical, they are all a waste of bandwidth calling people
sluts and saying they have come on their heads and disgusting shit like
that. Your mom needs to wash your mouth out with soap!
Why do you seduce young people to drink with those Budweiser froggie
sock puppets Lazzarini?
> You got booted off of AOL for spamming!
Big whoop. Unjustifyable as well here is the AOL usenet rules which I
DID NOT do three times as the TOS states;
Last updated on 23 June 1995
USENET and local newsgroups. It outlines the procedures that America
Online members or other newsgroup participants can use to handle
newsgroup abuses. It also gives pointers to other resources available to
learn about newsgroup culture.
GUIDELINES
It is important for members to make themselves aware of the various
conventions, guidelines and local culture in newsgroups before becoming
an active participant. Read the document titled "IMPORTANT: Please
Read" for general guidelines, as well as the articles posted to
aol.motd, news.answers and news.newusers.questions.
NEWSGROUP TERMS OF SERVICE VIOLATIONS
Participating successfully in newsgroups is a matter of common sense and
courtesy. Most America Online members are able to use their own sense of
what is appropriate to guide their behavior. However, there will always
be innocent, inadvertant postings; there will also always be malicious,
intentional postings. While it is not always clear which is the case,
certain activities will result in an America Online member receiving a
Terms of Service warning or more severe action. Postings that will
result in Terms of Service actions include the following:
Snip!
INAPPROPRIATE POSTS. Each Newsgroup focuses on a particular set of
topics. Posts not related to these topics are not appreciated by the
participants. It is important that America Online members become
familiar with the culture and guidelines of a particular Newsgroup
BEFORE posting. Doing so will make your experience with newsgroups much
more pleasant.
They should talk to Lazzariuni! He breaks these rules with every post!!
TERMS OF SERVICE ACTIONS
Most valid complaints against a member will result in the offending
article(s) being canceled and the America Online member receiving a
Terms of Service warning. Additionally, your access to newsgroups may be
restricted depending on the nature and severity of the violation.
Second instances of abuse will result in your account and all screen
names associated with it being restricted from newsgroups access. Second
instances of commercial abuse of newsgroups, or of commercial chain
letters, will result in your termination from America Online.
I never even had a second time!
Third instances of abuse will result in your termination from America
Online.
America Online also reserves the right to either restrict access to
newsgroups or terminate accounts for severe cases of Newsgroup abuse.
This would include what is known as "spamming", which is the act of
posting large numbers of (usually irrelevant) messages to numerous
newsgroups.
How is a FAQ an irrelevent message?
Snip!
> >I canceled two of the posts,
> Too little, too late, psycho!
> >it was a mistake
> No kidding! A big, stupid, foolish mistake that sent you spiralling into a
> paryoxm of whining and lies!
You are violating TOS Lazzdildo, now watch it or I will have to
complain.
> >take a break Bud man.
> I ain't your Buddy!
Budweiser man! Sock puppet boy!
> >Try to post some astrology
> I have!! But I just use its' abbreviation: "shit", 'cuz it types quicker!
This violates TOS at AOL, why is it rich people don't get their accounts
canceled?
> >and have some repect for other people-
> Oh, I have respect for *other* people; just not you! You'll have to earn yours,
> peon!
My, my. What an intellect.
--
"Bud-weis-er." Lazzwaldo seducer of young children to alcohol.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
rick
In article <3463E4...@sdsu.com>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>Yours are identical,
Bullshit Edie.
>they are all a waste of bandwidth calling people
>sluts and saying they have come on their heads and disgusting shit like
>that. Your mom needs to wash your mouth out with soap!
Shall we review some of your posts? Not the spam post but the abusive
name calling posts. Or maybe your potty mouth posts? You are hardly
mister innocent Edie. But you are a spammer.
>> You got booted off of AOL for spamming!
>Big whoop. Unjustifyable as well here is the AOL usenet rules which I
>DID NOT do three times as the TOS states;
No? ROFL!!!
>I never even had a second time!
Sure you did and you continued to post your spam. I saw it.
>Third instances of abuse will result in your termination from America
>Online.
>America Online also reserves the right to either restrict access to
>newsgroups or terminate accounts for severe cases of Newsgroup abuse.
Which in your case they did.
>This would include what is known as "spamming", which is the act of
>posting large numbers of (usually irrelevant) messages to numerous
>newsgroups.
>
>How is a FAQ an irrelevent [sic] message?
How is "SNIP" relevant? How is "SNIP" posted over and over ever
relevant?
>Snip!
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollmann wrote:
>calling people sluts and saying they have come on their heads
Please re-post the message where I said someone was a slut with come on their
head.
>and disgusting shit like
>that. Your mom needs to wash your mouth out with soap!
Actually, if I archive posts, I will find far more profanity in your own
messages. Once I saw Ed Wollmann, king god of a.a swearing like a sailor, I
thought, well, when in Rome, do as the Romans do!
And, actually, unlike you, I don't move my lips or utter the words verbally
that I post. I just type 'em.
Are you saying my name is Lazzini or Lazzarini? Make up your mind!
And I didn't create the bud frog puppets.
Please provide evidence of your claim that I have seduced young people with
alcohol, with puppets or otherwise.
You may be having to fire a new set of lawyers soon!
Sherilyn
...
>
>I never even had a second time!
Then quotes the AOL TOS:
...
>
>America Online also reserves the right to either restrict access to
>newsgroups or terminate accounts for severe cases of Newsgroup abuse.
===============================
>This would include what is known as "spamming", which is the act of
==============================================
>posting large numbers of (usually irrelevant) messages to numerous
>newsgroups.
>
...
On the evidence I presented to AOL [1], Edmond spammed the same message
more than 80 times in 45 days (37 of them from AOL), which makes him a
spammer on those postings alone. Then there's the small matter of
archimeden's spam postings [2], which I am pretty convinced should be
laid at Edmond's door.
After his warning, he still continued to post spam [3].
[1] http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/aol01.txt
[2] http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/wollmann.html
I clicked on the archimeden button and counted AOL's cancels of messages
made on one day (September 20th). I made it 36. The original postings
are no longer there, but here's the complaint message about the original
spam that I sent to AOL.
Message-ID: <QWjLEHA8...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:33:48 +0100
To: atr...@aol.com
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Subject: ONGOING EMP from archi...@aol.com
Two sets of spam, since Tuesday 16th September, escalating
somewhat today, Sat 20th.
CONTENTS
1) Multiple posting of the same byte-for-byte quote from a FAQ,
24 posts, mostly to sci.skeptic, mostly today. Some earlier
spams on alt.astrology. ONGOING.
=======
2) Multiple posting of posts containing only the words TROLL
BAIT and no substantive comment, 9 posts. Apparently ended.
DETAILS
1) Multiple posting of the same byte-for-byte quote from a FAQ,
24 posts, mostly to sci.skeptic, mostly today. Some earlier
spams on alt.astrology.
Sample
BEGIN SAMPLE
Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!feed1.news.
erols.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.a
ol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: archi...@aol.com (Archimeden)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scientificly rigorous test of astrology: a subject
skeptics wish to avoid
Date: 20 Sep 1997 17:00:38 GMT
Message-ID: <19970920170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <34233C...@texas.delete.net>
SnewsLanguage: English
Lines: 33
Xref: news.demon.co.uk sci.skeptic:236021
****** ANSWERS ******
1) For what sort of discussions is alt.astrology intended?
Answer: Alt.astrology is intended as a forum for astrologers of
all levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced, to discuss
astrological topics.
Alt.astrology is *not* intended as a forum for disbelievers to
voice their contempt for astrologers or to harass astrologers
about their belief in astrology and demand of them scientific
proof. Groups discussing the scientific validity of theories are
prefixed with "sci." If you wish to discuss the validity of
astrology as a discipline (as opposed to the validity of
specific theoretical statements within the domain of astrology),
the appropriate group on which to post is sci.skeptic. Here is
the statement of purpose for that group:
"Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims
of the paranormal to meet with those who believe in the
paranormal. In this way the paranormalists can expose
their ideas to scientific scrutiny, and if there is
anything in these ideas then the skeptics might learn
something."
Sci.skeptic often contains long discussions of scientific
evidence for and against specific astrological hypotheses, and
such discussion is welcome in that group. Further, many members
of that group are qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. The
astrologers in this group who enjoy participating in such
discussion with skeptics read and post to sci.skeptic.
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
END SAMPLE
Instances
Message-ID: <19970920170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970920165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970918020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
2) Multiple posting of posts containing only the words TROLL
BAIT and no substantive comment
Sample:
BEGIN SAMPLE
Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!cpk-news-
hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!1
52.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!newstf0
.news.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: archi...@aol.com (Archimeden)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Astrologers predict Princess Di's death!
Date: 17 Sep 1997 05:53:44 GMT
Message-ID: <19970917055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <5vh933$45v$1...@usenet88.supernews.com>
SnewsLanguage: English
Lines: 5
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.astrology:110102
>From: fr...@linkline.com (Fredric L. Rice)
Rice & Ellis pudding=TROLL BAIT!
Archimedes
Mathematician and crosspost killer for hire.
END SAMPLE
Instances
Message-ID: <19970917055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917054...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <19970917153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
--
Sherilyn
[3]
Here is the email I sent to AOL when Edmond was disciplined but
continued to post spam.
Message-ID: <$zZQttBZ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:26:33 +0100
To: atr...@aol.com
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Wollmann still producing EMP
I can't believe this. You client is _still_ putting out these
repetitive, disruptive, content-free posts. I could send you
two dozen identical copies of this post from your client from
the past month alone.
In article <19970926034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
EWollmann <ewol...@aol.com> writes
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.na
>amar.de!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.ao
>l.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: ewol...@aol.com (EWollmann)
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>Subject: Re: Wollmann forced to stop EMP (was Cynics try to
>remove Ed wollmann's AOL account)
>Date: 26 Sep 1997 03:48:38 GMT
>Message-ID: <19970926034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <342B13...@texas.delete.net>
>SnewsLanguage: English
>Lines: 6
>Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.astrology:111624
>
>>From: Tony Jebson <je...@texas.delete.net>
>
>SNIP!
>Still off topic.
>Edmond H. Wollmann
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
--
Sherilyn
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
alt.astrology Twinkle, twinkle, little planet.
Posting FAQ http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/posting.txt
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
Fox Mulder
In article <19971108061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lazz...@aol.com says...
> Ed Wollmann wrote:
>
> >calling people sluts and saying they have come on their heads
>
> Please re-post the message where I said someone was a slut with come on their
> head.
It was the post to me, (patronizing me and trying to *explain* to me that
NOBODY would ever accuse me of having an adolescent crush on Ed) where
you used Marsha and your interpretation of her posts as your evidence.
Remember, Rick, the one I told you that at times you were funny but that
the post in question wasn't one of those times?
Set 'em up, patronize for a while, and then attack.
> >and disgusting shit like
> >that. Your mom needs to wash your mouth out with soap!
>
> Actually, if I archive posts, I will find far more profanity in your own
> messages. Once I saw Ed Wollmann, king god of a.a swearing like a sailor, I
> thought, well, when in Rome, do as the Romans do!
So what. You cynics deliberately manipulate, attack, ridicule and
play your stupid semantic games. The response you get is aimed at your
INTENT, not the *innocent little truth seeker* persona you all try to
project. I bet you swear when your rights are deliberately violated and
the violation flaunted in your face. Hey Rick, maybe I'll e-mail
Budweiser and tell them why I don't drink it anymore...see how you like
it when you're attacked in a round-about, REALLY DIRTY way. You cynics
need to "walk in the other guys shoes" for a while. You can go and find
the post about Marsha's crush on Ed and repost it to me.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <3463E4...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
> writes
...
> >I never even had a second time!
> Then quotes the AOL TOS:
...
Snip!
Did you ever thiunk for a moment that *I* would know what I did and what
I did not do? Concocting scenarios based on your delusions does not =
evidence.
You might wish to stop guessing and find something to discuss with the
rest of us. Not only do you appear to have OCD with regard to sock
puppetry and that whole concept, but with me as well. And what has any
of this accomplished? Nothing, I am still here posting, WILL still be
here posting and refute your misconceptions about the nature of reality
and astrology while I am here. The only purpose your OCD could possibly
serve is to consistently disrupt a newsgroup to deny persons there from
discussing the subject of their interest-therefore you are a
hypocritical;
POT_KETTLE_BLACK.
--
"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster
Edmond Wollmann
LazzDildo wrote:
> Ed Wollmann wrote:
> >calling people sluts and saying they have come on their heads
> Please re-post the message where I said someone was a slut with come on their
> head.
#1
Subject: Re: Wollman, come-drenched asshole of the 4th quadrant
From: lazz...@aol.com (LazzWaldo)
Date: 1997/10/19
Message-ID: <19971019075...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
"Beldar" (pathetic sock puppet identity of Ed Wollman) wrote:
>Who said I was Beldar Conehead?
I did, shithead.
---
#2
Subject: Re: Slutori, ol' hole
From: lazz...@aol.com (LazzWaldo)
Date: 1997/10/15
Message-ID: <19971015043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Hey Slut, don't e-mail me neither.
---
You want more or is that enough?
--
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18
Sherilyn
In article <3464A1...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <3463E4...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
>> writes
> ...
>> >I never even had a second time!
>
>> Then quotes the AOL TOS:
> ...
>
"Snip!" ?
Ah, that brings back memories of your spam period.
Edmond, you accuse others suffering from OCD, but it was you who went
around obsessively following up postings with "snip!", and had to be
thrown off AOL for refusing to stop making many posts containing things
like "snip!" and nothing else of substance.
Now you have graduated to posting lies, evasions and false accusations.
I guess I *have* achieved something; you are no longer able to post spam
as if this was your right, but are reduced to pretending you never did
it, or that it was a mere technicality that some "cynics" caught you out
on. I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness. In the name of
truthfulness, I'm going to put my emails up on the WWW page beside the
others so that more and more people will see what a whopping great
spamming liar you are.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/aol00.txt
Complaint email containing evidence of Edmond's massive
"archimeden" spam.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/aol00.txt
Complaint email presenting evidence showing Edmond did
not reform his behavior after being disciplined by AOL.
[more of the spammer's lies snipped]
...
LazzWaldo
Fox Mulder wrote:
>It was the post to me, (patronizing me and trying to *explain* to me that
>NOBODY would ever accuse me of having an adolescent crush on Ed) where
>you used Marsha and your interpretation of her posts as your evidence.
Excuse me. In that post I neither called her a slut nor did I say she had come
on her head. I won't repost it myself, as I did say other unkind things about
her, and don't wish to cause her to be insulted again. I apologized to her, as
well.
The point is, Ed accuses me, as do you, of posting something I haven't.
I admit to the posts I've made, and apologize to people when I've hurt their
feelings. That's a far more than I can say about you or Ed.
> You cynics deliberately manipulate, attack, ridicule and
>play your stupid semantic games.
Substitute "astrology posters" for "cynics" and it reads the same!
> I bet you swear when your rights are deliberately violated
Please post an example of someone's rights being violated in this newsgroup.
>Hey Rick, maybe I'll e-mail
>Budweiser and tell them why I don't drink it anymore...
I am sure that Budweiser will be heartbroken that they have lost such an
intelligent customer as you! They will probably have me taken out and shot,
and will give all their money away to charity and wear sackcloth and burlap,
scatter ashes on their heads, and wail and gnash their teeth. For God's sake
DON'T DO IT! I HAVE A FAMILY TO FEED!
>see how you like
>it when you're attacked in a round-about, REALLY DIRTY way.
Uh, you just decribed a typical day in a.a! But I *will* archive your threat;
you never know when it'll come in handy!
Have a happy!
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollmann wrote:
>>Hey Slut, don't e-mail me neither.
---
>You want more or is that enough?
Well, I didn't say she had come on her head!
And I didn't say she was a slut, I modified her name in a
humorous/disrespectful way, same way you do with "LazzDildo", and then
shortened it, same way you do with Lazz.
Had I called her a slut the "S" would have been lowercase.
So. Your agenda is clear. You don't like anyone else doing the same exact
things you do. That sounds fair!
LazzWaldo
Ed Wollmann wrote:
Nothing to do with astrology.
Major off-topicness.
Again.
Another complaint is about due to his new ISP.
Please confine yourself to the subject of astrology, Mr. Wollmann.
Now, on to the topic. Are there doctorates available in astrology? Are there
universities that legitimize astrology by giving out Phds?
I ask because, however many people claim Ed's briliance and education as an
Astrologer, why his credentials are not more impressive.
rick
In article <3464A1...@sdsu.com>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>Snip!
Shall we count the number of posts with only an attribution and
a "snip" Edie? Whine all you want but you are still a spammer.
ell...@idt.net
In article <3464CB...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
>truths. If there was only one truth, there would only be your version.
>Forcing or insisting on your version is not only not explempary of an
>understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
>discernments.
Is this your excuse for spamming? ROFL!
Blue Wolf
} Concocting scenarios based on your delusions does not =
}evidence.
She's telling the truth, Ed. Something which you apparently know
nothing about and are not qualified to discuss.....(according to your
own rules).
And if you know what you did, then you shouldn't complain that it was
unfair, since it actually wasn't..... Your ISPs AUP is there for a
reason ~ read it, UNDERSTAND IT (I know this is where you have
problems. I do hope you seek help.), know it, and follow it.
>==================================================
> n,
> _/ |
> /' `)
> <~ .'
> .' |
> _/ |
> _/ `.`.
> / ' \__ | |
> ___/ /__\ \ \
>(___.'\_______)\_|_|
>==================================================
Blue Wolf's Magickal Blends
~Inspired by Spirit~
http://www.wizard.net/~bluewolf/home.htm
Lori Pontarelli ~ aka Sappho
http://www.wizard.net/~bluewolf/sappho/spage1.html
==================================================
Just as the sweet-apple reddens on the high branch,
high on the highest, and the apple-pickers missed it,
or rather did not miss it out, but dared not reach it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sappho
Remove the Spam "Guardian" from my address to email me
James S. Lovejoy
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
Good spin-doctoring. Might even work for those who weren't around back
then.
> Sherilyn wrote:
>
> > I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
>
> There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
> truths. If there was only one truth, there would only be your version.
> Forcing or insisting on your version is not only not explempary of an
> understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
> discernments.
> That the truth is you and your insecure cynical mates will not be
> content unless you are misrepresenting and smearing me with propagadic
> spin doctoring-because with every attempt you prove the I have stated
> the truth and that I am indeed the threatening and unbeatable astrologer
> you cannot defeat. Hence, you insist on smearing me and twisting truth
> in oder to deflect the percived threat because you are powerless and
> cannot be for your own interests with conviction. You are impotent
> because you cannot allow others to believe whatever they
> wish-reinforcing my obviously accurate announcement from square one
> that;
> --
> "For the Sherilyn is a psychic rapist you see."
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
--
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge 2 Peter 1:5
-
ell...@idt.net
In article <3464A1...@sdsu.com>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>Did you ever thiunk for a moment that *I* would know what I did and what
>I did not do?
Sure you do. But you continue to deny it. I must conclude you do this
because you lack integrity.
>Concocting scenarios based on your delusions does not =
>evidence.
Concocting? There is no need for anybody to concoct anything about
your spam.
>You might wish to stop guessing and find something to discuss with the
>rest of us.
You might want to stop lying about your spamming.
>Not only do you appear to have OCD with regard to sock
>puppetry and that whole concept, but with me as well.
Sure Edie.
>And what has any
>of this accomplished? Nothing,
It accomplished the reducing of your credibility.
>I am still here posting,
You are still being laughed at.
Blue Wolf
}Sherilyn wrote:
}
}> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
}
}There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
}truths.
The truth that is the composition of all truths is that you have
spammed and you have had accounts taken because of it.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
Fred Hollowman
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Hey Ed!
>
> Forcing or insisting on your version of truth is not only not explempary of an
> understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
> discernments.
Are YOU qualified to define truth? How many charts have YOU cast? How
many have you councelled? How many past lives have YOU come to terms
with?
How do YOU define spam sir? Ed merely reposted the SAME THING many
times and under many cleverly hidden aliases. You call THAT SPAM? Fall
on your face and subjugate youself to your betters. The sand box is
full and there's no sand left for your childish bucket.
--
"Hit the road Jack, and don't 'cha come back no more, no more, no more,
no more"
--
Fred Hollowman S.I.C.K.
© 1997 Uhpyors Publications
Ed Wollman Worship
LazzWaldo
Fox Mulder
In article <19971108191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
lazz...@aol.com says...
> Fox Mulder wrote:
>
> >It was the post to me, (patronizing me and trying to *explain* to me that
> >NOBODY would ever accuse me of having an adolescent crush on Ed) where
> >you used Marsha and your interpretation of her posts as your evidence.
>
> Excuse me. In that post I neither called her a slut nor did I say she had come
> on her head. I won't repost it myself, as I did say other unkind things about
> her, and don't wish to cause her to be insulted again. I apologized to her, as
> well.
>
mouth...gee Rick, such literary talent.
> The point is, Ed accuses me, as do you, of posting something I haven't.
>
> I admit to the posts I've made, and apologize to people when I've hurt their
> feelings. That's a far more than I can say about you or Ed.
>
you? No, I'm not going to look for it. I'm going to reformat my hard
drive, which activity, is infinitely more pleasant.
> > You cynics deliberately manipulate, attack, ridicule and
> >play your stupid semantic games.
>
> Substitute "astrology posters" for "cynics" and it reads the same!
The point is, that despite the cynics bleating about the legitimacy of
posting, unwanted, in an *alt.* newsgroup, they are violating the rights
of every astrologically inclined poster-the right to privacy and freedom
of speech. I didn't mean Ed in particular there, I meant anyone posting
here with an interest or possible interest in astrology. You're all
HERE, in the first place, because you're violating rights and have no
respect for the rights and preferences of others. Go for it. But don't
think you can demand to be treated with respect in return.
>
> > I bet you swear when your rights are deliberately violated
>
> Please post an example of someone's rights being violated in this newsgroup.
>
The right to privacy. The right to think. The right to assemble.
Freedom of speech (ummm, that's the foundation of this country Ricky).
EVERYONE'S rights in this newsgroup have been, and are, violated by you
and the rest of the cynics on a daily basis.
> >Hey Rick, maybe I'll e-mail
> >Budweiser and tell them why I don't drink it anymore...
>
> I am sure that Budweiser will be heartbroken that they have lost such an
> intelligent customer as you! They will probably have me taken out and shot,
> and will give all their money away to charity and wear sackcloth and burlap,
> scatter ashes on their heads, and wail and gnash their teeth. For God's sake
> DON'T DO IT! I HAVE A FAMILY TO FEED!
What has my intelligence, or lack of, have to do with Budweiser wanting
my money? You have a family? You've reproduced?
> >see how you like
> >it when you're attacked in a round-about, REALLY DIRTY way
> Uh, you just decribed a typical day in a.a! But I *will* archive your threat;
> you never know when it'll come in handy!
Yeah, maybe you can cut and paste, and play mix and match, with 3 or 4
other posts. I'm just shaking over here Rick...
>
> Have a happy!
Good bye
Edmond Wollmann
Fred Hollowman wrote:
> How dare the skep-ti-punks invade this group and
> attempt to discuss rational thinking.
This is a novel idea, when can I expect this? Or is it the clear headed
perception of you propagandists that it HAS happened? One has to have a
rational recipient to make it a discussion.
--
"Fear is the parent of cruelty." James Anthony Froude
Marsha
Fox Mulder wrote:
> You cynics
> need to "walk in the other guys shoes" for a while.
That's hard to do when you have to keep changing your socks.
> You can go and
> find the post about Marsha's crush on Ed and repost it to me.
Or not, and say you did...and for all I know he could be a female...and
for all some people know he could be my sock puppet.
Marsha
Prem Thomas
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Now, on to the topic. Are there doctorates available in astrology? Are there
> universities that legitimize astrology by giving out Phds?
>
> I ask because, however many people claim Ed's briliance and education as an
> Astrologer, why his credentials are not more impressive.
I believe there are organizations that call themselves "universities" offering
Ph.D. courses in astrology. One outstanding example of the product of such
universities is the legendary(in his own mind) "Dr." Jai
Maharaj(j...@mantra.com), who incidentally is an ardent fan of Mr. Wollman.
I don't think there are any legitimate(academically) courses offered in
astrology, even at the under grad level. But then again, as Mr. Wollman would be
quick to point out, legitimacy lies in one's own perception.
Prem
mailto:pre...@qed.net
LazzWaldo
Mulder wrote:
(LazzWaldo wrote)
>> Please post an example of someone's rights being violated in this newsgroup.
>
>The right to privacy.
Sorry, an unrestricted public forum doesn't offer many privacy protections. I
could see if I was posting peoples credit card numbers and balances and
addresses, but I don't. And I wouldn't.
So, specifically, please re-post an example of my violating someone's right to
privacy.
Oh. I know. Another assertion by Fox Mulder he won't be able to support. Deja
Vu!
>The right to think.
So you figure I've taken away someone's right to think here, eh? Wow! So as
soon as I started posting, the people who regularly post to a.a stopped
thinking ! That explains a lot, and I believe I'll be going to the bank now.
I've got some tellers and bank guards I want to try a little parlor trick
on...
>The right to assemble.
Everyone here is free to come and go as they please! But if you think I've
violated that right give the ACLU a call and see if they take you any more
seriously than I do!
>Freedom of speech (ummm, that's the foundation of this country Ricky).
I've squelched freedom of SPEECH!?! Then why does Eddie keep on lying and
posting?
You are really fucked up! You think your right to free speech means that
everybody who has something to say that you don't like has to shut up!
Ed says he doesn't like followers....you'd better let go of his belt loop,
punk.
>EVERYONE'S rights in this newsgroup have been, and are, violated by you
>and the rest of the cynics on a daily basis.
Nossir! YOU have been violating CYNIC'S rights with the mere PRESENCE of this
newsgroup!
See how kooky that sounds?
Get some better arguments. Talk to a civil rights attorney, or crack open an
actual book and steal some ideas from there. You're a real amateur.
Edmond Wollmann
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:13:16 -0700, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >The point is, that despite the cynics bleating about the legitimacy of
> >posting, unwanted, in an *alt.* newsgroup,
> do, and I WANT differing views. Only latent censors such as yourself
> and REAL censors like Eddie think that diversity of viewpoints are
> unwanted by sane people.
So when are you cynics going to post something diverse? You post the
same tired spin doctoring bullshit day in and day out-knowing that at
least half the unknowing will believe it.
You are propagandists, not diverse viewpoints.
Snip of SOS.
--
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
LazzWaldo
Eddie WOllman wrote:
>One has to have a
>rational recipient to make it a discussion.
In your reality.
Tr...@beauty.com
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:07:21 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>So when are you cynics going to post something diverse? You post the
>same tired spin doctoring bullshit day in and day out-knowing that at
>least half the unknowing will believe it.
>You are propagandists, not diverse viewpoints.
<snip>
Off-topic post, Eddie. Not one thing about astrology in it.
Follow your own 'rules' in the future, censor.
TRUTH
Post to reply.
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ecf80fb6...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
...
>
>The point is, that despite the cynics bleating about the legitimacy of
>of every astrologically inclined poster-the right to privacy and freedom
>of speech. I didn't mean Ed in particular there, I meant anyone posting
>here with an interest or possible interest in astrology. You're all
>HERE, in the first place, because you're violating rights and have no
>respect for the rights and preferences of others.
Could you explain this, Fox? I have some questions that I hope you will
take very seriously, and I'm not of a mind to be deflected by your usual
"cynic" claim.
Firstly, on what basis do you claim the postings are unwanted? Unwanted
by whom? I look around me and I see quite civilized and friendly
responses to my postings and others by people who I know to have
completely different viewpoints on astrology from my own. I see a small
noisy rump of posters who would rather argue the legitimacy of posting
to a newsgroup than engage the subject at hand.
Secondly, how are anyone's rights to privacy and freedom of speech
affected? If you want your statements to be accorded privacy, don't
make them in a public newsgroup. Furthermore, the presence on USENET of
readers who will tend to react unfavorably to your statements does not
take away your complete freedom to make those statements.
The term "cynic" is a two-edged sword. Am I the only person who finds
something coldly cynical about the sustained attempt, which went on for
several years before I showed up, by various pro-astrology people to
appropriate this newsgroup for the sole purpose of pro-astrology
postings.
Sherilyn
In article <346609...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
writes
...
>"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
>folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
>fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
I always thought this phrase characterized more than anything else
Edmond's persistent spamming and sock puppetry, despite anything he
might be presumed to have learned from his many past errors.
Edmond's subject line was:
Subject: Tr...@Beauty.com sock puppet extrordianaire
I have corrected it. For good reasons why, see:
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/sockpuppets.txt
Tr...@beauty.com
>Fred Hollowman wrote:
>
>> How dare the skep-ti-punks invade this group and
>> attempt to discuss rational thinking.
>
>This is a novel idea, when can I expect this? Or is it the clear headed
>perception of you propagandists that it HAS happened? One has to have a
>rational recipient to make it a discussion.
Why are you responding to one of your own posts, Eddie?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
In article <346609...@sdsu.com>,
woll...@sdsu.com wrote:
>Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>> [...]
>
> So when are you cynics going to post something diverse? You post the
> same tired spin doctoring bullshit day in and day out-knowing that at
> least half the unknowing will believe it. You are propagandists, not diverse
Most newsgroup reading programs today have filtering
capabilities -- even the free ones such as NewsXpress
and Free Agent. Or, one can participate in the newsgroups
by proceeding to free newsgroup services such as:
http://www.dejanews.com
http://www.altavista.com
http://www.reference.com
and others. These too offer filtering capabilities.
So, simple technological solutions do exist which can be used
at the individual level. Almost always, most are easier and less
time-consuming than posting complaints, one observes.
Jai Maharaj
Jyotish, Vedic Astrologer
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Om Shanti
Copyright (C) 1997 Mantra Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
rick
In article <Jyotish-2...@news.mantra.com>,
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
>> So when are you cynics going to post something diverse? You post the
>> same tired spin doctoring bullshit day in and day out-knowing that at
>> least half the unknowing will believe it. You are propagandists, not diverse
>> viewpoints. Snip of SOS. - woll...@sdsu.com
>Most newsgroup reading programs today have filtering
>capabilities
You haven't been listening. Edie doesn't want to filter posts from
reaching him. He wants the posts to be gone so other people can't
read them.
Fred Hollowman
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
> truths. If there was only one truth, there would only be your version.
> Forcing or insisting on your version is not only not explempary of an
> understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
> discernments.
No Truer words were ever spoken. Truth is in the eye of the beholder,
and the reality of said beholder is in the eye of the one true truth.
Ed is the light and the way.
> That the truth is you and your insecure cynical mates will not be
> content unless you are misrepresenting and smearing me with propagadic
> spin doctoring-because with every attempt you prove the I have stated
> the truth and that I am indeed the threatening and unbeatable astrologer
> you cannot defeat.
Ed is the very smell of unbeatableness. His face will smash the
beer-bottle of all doubt.
> Hence, you insist on smearing me and twisting truth
> in oder to deflect the percived threat because you are powerless and
> cannot be for your own interests with conviction. You are impotent
> because you cannot allow others to believe whatever they
> wish-reinforcing my obviously accurate announcement from square one
> that;
Limp dicks, every one. How dare the skep-ti-punks invade this group and
attempt to discuss rational thinking. This is an ASTROLOGY newsgroups!
> --
> "For the Sherilyn is a psychic rapist you see."
> --
Raping psychics is a felony an at least 10 states.
--
"Jeremiah was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine, never understood a
single word he said, but he always had some mighty fine wine."
--
Fred Hollowman P.U.S.S.
Tr...@beauty.com
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:13:16 -0700, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
wrote:
<snip>
>The point is, that despite the cynics bleating about the legitimacy of
>posting, unwanted, in an *alt.* newsgroup,
I read this newsgroup, I have just as much right to be here as you
do, and I WANT differing views. Only latent censors such as yourself
and REAL censors like Eddie think that diversity of viewpoints are
unwanted by sane people.
Diversity is healthy and necessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise
has the moral standing of the Ku Klux Klan or leftist wackos like
Louis Farakkhan. Censorship as practiced by the pro-astrology
posters here is beneath comtempt.
>they are violating the rights
>of every astrologically inclined poster-the right to privacy and freedom
>of speech.
Please tell us what 'rights' those might be, Fox. The 'right' to post
in a public newsgroup without challenge? The 'right' to spew
propaganda about a scam like astrology without examination
or refutation?
Kindly point us all to any valid and enforceable constitution,
charter, or contract that binds ALL posters to those sort of odious
restrictions.
We are here, Fox. If you don't like it, go polish your jackboots
or something.
> I didn't mean Ed in particular there, I meant anyone posting
>here with an interest or possible interest in astrology. You're all
>HERE, in the first place, because you're violating rights and have no
>respect for the rights and preferences of others.
On the contrary, it is YOU and other pro-astrology posters who
violate OUR rights. By your own admission, you advocate
censorship of others. Sorry, but you won't be using MY skin
for any lampshades today.
> Go for it.
We do. Every day.
> But don't
>think you can demand to be treated with respect in return.
How Clintonesque of you, Fox. Demonize those who disagree
with you. You definitely have a future in the Democrat Party.
>
>>
>> > I bet you swear when your rights are deliberately violated
>>
>> Please post an example of someone's rights being violated in this newsgroup.
>>
>The right to privacy.
How do Usenet posts you don't like violate your privacy? Please
explain in detail.
> The right to think.
How do Usenet posts you don't like violate your 'right' to think?
Please explain in detail.
> The right to assemble.
How do Usenet posts you don't like violate your right to assemble?
Please explain in detail.
>Freedom of speech (ummm, that's the foundation of this country Ricky).
And what country would that be, Fox? Usenet is an international
forum.
How do Usenet posts you don't like violate your freedom of speech?
Please explain in detail. If you don't like another poster's
viewpoint, you have the 'right' to ignore or killfile it. You have no
other 'rights.'
>EVERYONE'S rights in this newsgroup have been, and are, violated by you
>and the rest of the cynics on a daily basis.
Bullshit. You and others violate our rights to free expression every
time you demonize your opponents.
<snip>
>
>What has my intelligence, or lack of, have to do with Budweiser wanting
>my money? You have a family? You've reproduced?
A personal attack. How typical.
Get mental help, Fox. Soon.
Fred Hollowman
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <346609...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
> writes
> ...
> >"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
> >folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
> >fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
> I always thought this phrase characterized more than anything else
> Edmond's persistent spamming and sock puppetry, despite anything he
> might be presumed to have learned from his many past errors.
In YOUR reality. Are we really supposed to think a man that wears
women's clothing and then admits it here for all to read can compete
with the beer-bottle bashing masculinity that is Ed Wollman?? How many
hogs have you ridden (not as a passenger), how many charts have you
cast? Ed's legs look better in fishnets than yours any day
poofboy...back to the sandbox.
--
"Am I the only person who finds something coldly cynical about the
sustained attempt, which went on for several years before I showed up,
by various pro-astrology people to
appropriate this newsgroup for the sole purpose of pro-astrology
postings."
--
Fred Hollowman S.M.U.T.
Sue Armitage
In article <KtZR0gAx...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>Firstly, on what basis do you claim the postings are unwanted? Unwanted
>by whom? I look around me and I see quite civilized and friendly
>responses to my postings and others by people who I know to have
>completely different viewpoints on astrology from my own. I see a small
>noisy rump of posters who would rather argue the legitimacy of posting
>to a newsgroup than engage the subject at hand.
I, for one (when I have time) will be happy to answer questions on
astrology from anyone who is prepared to consider that all astrologers
are not frauds and moneygrabbers and does not just want to engage in a
slanging match without considering that someone who holds a different
point of view is not necessarily mad, bad or dishonest!
Personally, it does not bother me if someone is skeptical about
astrology but it does *interest* me, from a therapist's point of view,
when they are *violently* anti........
I do realise that what has been going on here has more to do with the
'personality' of certain astrologers than astrology itself but if you
*genuinely* want an open minded discussion I would be happy to
participate. In your own words: this is a genuine offer - and I hope I
will not live to regret it......
Sue
PS If you put sci-skeptic back on the header I will assume your
interest is not genuine.
--
Sue Armitage
>same tired spin doctoring bullshit day in and day out-knowing that at
>least half the unknowing will believe it.
And some of the knowing who would rather NOT!
Fred Hollowman
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:51:43 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>
> >Fred Hollowman wrote:
> >
> >> attempt to discuss rational thinking.
> >
> >perception of you propagandists that it HAS happened? One has to have a
> >rational recipient to make it a discussion.
>
> Why are you responding to one of your own posts, Eddie?
Oh that this was true. I however can never fill the mighty skull cap of
Ed Wollman. I am not fit to tie his shoes, and you are not fit to be
trodden apon.
> TRUTH
Is subjective. Ed is the light and the way.
Hail Ed!
--
"I have multiple personalities all over the multiverse-so what?"
--
Fred Hollowman P.U.D.D.
© 1997 Uhpyors Publications
Ed Wolman Worship
ell...@idt.net
In article <uaTFcJA3...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>PS If you put sci-skeptic back on the header I will assume your
>interest is not genuine.
Why do you fear sci.skeptic?
Edmond Wollmann
Blue Wolf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:28:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>
> }Sherilyn wrote:
> }
> }> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
> }
> }truths.
>
> spammed and you have had accounts taken because of it.
No, the truth is I am harrassed by vindictive and jealous persons such
as yourself.
I thought my punishment for being me from you was going to be you
wouldn't buy my books or reccommend them or some such other threat?
Isn't that enough? Now run along and do some more fantasizing about how
you'll get me someday.
EHW
astrologer
> >"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
> >folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
> >fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
> I always thought this phrase characterized more than anything else
> Edmond's persistent spamming and sock puppetry, despite anything he
> might be presumed to have learned from his many past errors.
Thats what you get for thinking for once-I never said I learned
anything-because there was nothing to learn-except the math so that you
spin and propagandist so-called debunkers (meaning in actuality
harrassers) could not cancel accounts from spam charges. Of course I
can't stop you idiots from complaining to servers.
This is all because you cannot come up with ligitimate arguments and
then seek to censor. THAT is the vomit you will return to since you
cannot argue coherently.
> Edmond's subject line was:
> Subject: Tr...@Beauty.com sock puppet extrordianaire
> I have corrected it.
Snip! And I have corrected you.
"Move over Busker! Don't bang your drum, move over Busker my time has
come! You've got it comin, comin to you!!!" Paul McCartney "Move Over
Busker"
astrologer
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP! Quite off topic. Please post just ONE post on astrology-if your
tiny cranium can handle it.
Sherilyn
[subject line restored]
In article <346776...@cosmos.com>, astrologer
<astro...@cosmos.com> writes
...
>
>Thats what you get for thinking for once-I never said I learned
>anything-because there was nothing to learn-except the math so that you
>spin and propagandist so-called debunkers (meaning in actuality
>harrassers) could not cancel accounts from spam charges.
You mean you had to learn that the 83 spam "FAQ" postings you made in 45
days was greater than 19? That's a rather weak excuse, Edmond.
Then there's the small matter of the 36-spam-postings-a-day
archi...@aol.com, so promptly dealt with by AOL they were practically
cancelled as soon as they appeared on the spool. Do you want to deny
posting from archimeden, Edmond? If you do explicitly deny having ever
posted with a from line of archi...@aol.com, I will removed all
references to archimeden from my FAQs, and never associate the
archimeden spam postings with you again. You admitted using Zeus150000,
hoovamoon is a name from a phrase invented by you from imagined past
lives, but for archimeden I have only circumstantial evidence--the
promptness with which AOL disciplined you, cancelled your postings, and
slung you off when I complained about your spam and archimeden's.
...
>
>> Edmond's subject line was:
>> Subject: Tr...@Beauty.com sock puppet extrordianaire
>
>> I have corrected it.
>
>Snip! And I have corrected you.
>
Here's another lesson for you, Edmond. "Snip!" does not actually remove
any of my words--or yours--from the server or from dejanews. Evidence
of your spam is still on dejanews. Evidence of your lies is still on
dejanews. No amount of "correction" will ever remove the fact of those
lies and that spam.
Sue Armitage
In article <646p55$h...@ellis.knirsch.de>, ell...@idt.net writes
I don't read sci.skeptic therefore don't want my posts there. It seems
to me that the place to discuss astrology is in an astrology newsgroup
and that is why I post in alt.astrology and not sci.skeptic.
If an astrologer posts in sci.skeptic my opinion is that this is
confrontational. A bit like one of the blue team supporters going down
the red team's end.........
You can call this fear if you like. I call it sensible......
--
Sherilyn
[discussion of a.a group charter with Fox]
>SNIP! Quite off topic.
Not so. Group charter discussions are always on topic in alt.*
newsgroups, and if this were a Big 8 newsgroup we would have
to discuss it in news.groups. Please read the relevant
FAQs.
>Please post just ONE post on astrology
[ad hominem ignored]
Some astrological postings you might have missed earlier.
1) Ethics of the Mornington Crescent System
(first posted Oct 14th)
In article <34430412...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
<bra...@erols.com> writes
> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:34:44 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <3441b00d...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
>><bra...@erols.com> writes
...
>>> I am quite interested in the Mornington Crescent System.
...
>As for learning
>the system, I don't think I will be able to take the time.
>Please forgive me if I have committed some kind of astrological
>faux pas by asking you for a free reading.
No problem. The Mornington Crescent Code of Ethics forbids
charging for teaching the principles of the system, on the basis
that it teaches respect for the fruits of commonsense and
reason--which are of course chargeable.
...
>
>Father forgive me...I have been thinking capricornian
>thoughts! But seriously, I think capricorn fits me better.
You goat, you.
>
>>It's a truly powerful system for enhancing your self-
>>awareness.
>
> I will learn as much as I can about it. Thanks. BTW, can it
>be used to predict the stock market or diagnose medical
>problems?
>
The beauty of the system is that it is applied commonsense.
Thus, in all professions, you will find the best and most
reliable practitioners are already practising this technique--
ithout realising it is a form of astrology.
2) Resources.
(first posted Oct 20th)
In article <$uK1BDA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <EerOGBAz...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>...
>>In fairness, I think it's as well to point out that if Edmond
>>didn't provide such an interesting sideshow there would be a
>>lot more discussion of the validity of astrology going on--and
>>I think Edmond is well aware of this and suspects he wouldn't
>>like that one bit
>
>You are wrong. He is a first class astrologer and very
>sincere.
I don't doubt that, in terms of astrology, he is as competent as
they come. But I don't see that it alters my strong perception
that he is very uneasy with the idea of people discussing the
validity of astrology in alt.astrology.
> My
>point is that there is no reason for engaging you in discussion
>as we are never likely to agree. You have made your mind up -
>which is fine. I have made mine up and this is fine too. If
>you are indifferent to astrology as you say you are then we
>don't have anything to argue about.
No problem.
>>
>>but dissident ideas (such as my bit of Mornington Crescent
>>agitprop)
>
>As a matter of interest, why have I heard of Mornington
>Crescent?
Good news gets around. ;)
Seriously (if that is the right word)
http://aurora.york.ac.uk/mc_em.html
Check out this excellent resources page:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d51vmk/mc_resources.html
with an honorable mention to:
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~dma/ProfX/
ell...@idt.net
ell...@idt.net
>This is all because you cannot come up with ligitimate arguments and
>then seek to censor. THAT is the vomit you will return to since you
>cannot argue coherently.
Once again you describe yourself. Your attempts to censor are well
documented and yet you continue to deny them...must be your Reality
doesn't quite fit with reality.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Please refrain from posting your fake faq, thats about 200 times now you
have spammed a worthless FAQ to this group....
the real FAQ is located at;
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
Fox Mulder
In article <66epid.at...@bbs.mpcs.com>, hgol...@mpcs.com says...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:27:32 -0700, Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> wrote:
> : That was the *intent* of the newsgroup, to be pro-astrology,
>
> How so?
>
> : whether or
> : not the person starting it was savvy enough to include such in the FAQ.
>
> Are you referring to the FAQ that someone else repeatedly posted here?
> If you are then the problem I have with that as evidence of the
> creator's mental state is that no one has shown any connection between it and
> this group's newgroupping.
I don't know what you mean by "this group's newgroupping" I'm not being
smart-ass, do you mean unmoderated?? In spite of what I've
been posting recently, I really do not wish to argue the validity of
astrology, because I can not. I know it's valid, I see it every day, but
I'd never suggest that I can prove it to anyone. Do you really think an
astrologer would start a newsgroup to argue validity? This is time
consuming, why would somebody want to waste time arguing the validity of
their profession, particularly when we all know we can't prove it to the
satisfaction of those aligning with "science" (here).
> Judging by who's against it, NoCeM must be a good thing
>
Edmond Wollmann
LazzWaldo wrote:
> Eddie Wollmann whined:
> >No, the truth is I am harrassed by vindictive and jealous persons such
> >as yourself.
> truly part of "All That Is" you would be strong enough to not claim
> harrassment. You're obviously giving your power away. How sad.
Everyone is a part of the solution or a part of the problem. I cannot
nor will I be, responsible for others choices.
ell...@idt.net
In article <3467E0...@sdsu.com>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>> You can only be harrassed if you are powerless and weak. If you were strong and
>> truly part of "All That Is" you would be strong enough to not claim
>> harrassment. You're obviously giving your power away. How sad.
>Everyone is a part of the solution or a part of the problem.
Wow, now you have sunk to quoting motivational posters.
>I cannot
>nor will I be, responsible for others choices.
Another evasion noted.
ell...@idt.net
In article <3467DC...@sdsu.com>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>> You mean you had to learn that the 83 spam "FAQ" postings you made in 45
>> days was greater than 19? That's a rather weak excuse, Edmond.
>I don't pay attention to counts-
Obviously!
>if that were the case you cynics have
>broken all records for off topic posts,
Off topic in YOUR opinion. But then posting off topic isn't spam. Spam
is posting the same thing again and again like you did.
>violating charters and spamming
>yourselves.
Spamming? Please provide evidence. Or is this just more defamation
from you?
>I have done nothing compared to the abuse heaped on usenet
>by you self righteous spin doctors who are immature adolescents that
>can't allow others to believe what they wish and can't argue well enough
>to convince anyone otherwise.
Bullshit! You spammed. Not a little tiny spam either. You spammed and
the purpose of your spam was to bully posters. On top of spamming you are
too little of a man to even admit it. What a sorry creature you are.
>> Here's another lesson for you, Edmond. "Snip!" does not actually remove
>> any of my words--or yours--from the server or from dejanews.
>DUH!
So you do understand that. So why have you spent so much time
spamming nothing but "SNIP"? Could it be because you are unable to
control your anger? It sure appears that way.
>Nor does it erase the fact that you are out of integrity,
A man that lies as much as you do should not speak of integrity.
>you can
>never stop me and I will be around with my view until them cows come
>home YYYYYYyeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
You'll never grow up either.
Greg Lynn
In article <3465F8...@sdsu.com>, woll...@sdsu.com says...
>
>Fred Hollowman wrote:
>
>> How dare the skep-ti-punks invade this group and
>> attempt to discuss rational thinking.
>
>This is a novel idea, when can I expect this? Or is it the clear
headed
>perception of you propagandists that it HAS happened? One has to have
a
>rational recipient to make it a discussion.
I see no logical argument in this attack.
-Greg
Fox Mulder
In article <KtZR0gAx...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.ecf80fb6...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
> Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
> ...
> >
> >The point is, that despite the cynics bleating about the legitimacy of
> >HERE, in the first place, because you're violating rights and have no
> >respect for the rights and preferences of others.
> Could you explain this, Fox? I have some questions that I hope you will
> take very seriously, and I'm not of a mind to be deflected by your usual
> "cynic" claim.
Hi Sherilyn
What's to explain? The newsgroup "alt.astrology" was started with the
*intent* of being a "pro-astrology" newsgroup. Whether or not whoever
started the newsgroup was savvy enough at the time to realize that they
had to write into the FAQ specifics disallowing "anti-astrology" or
"validity of astrology" discussions is, to me, not an issue. When I
searched DejaNews for newsgroups discussing astrology, and got
"alt.astrology" I never expected anything but discussions pro-astrology
and the study and practice *of* astrology. I lurk in a lot of newsgroups
and the subject matter is usually on-topic, and if it's not, the offender
is told to hit the road, and that's usually the end of it.
>
> Firstly, on what basis do you claim the postings are unwanted? Unwanted
> by whom? I look around me and I see quite civilized and friendly
> responses to my postings and others by people who I know to have
> completely different viewpoints on astrology from my own. I see a small
> noisy rump of posters who would rather argue the legitimacy of posting
> to a newsgroup than engage the subject at hand.
Unwanted by astrologers. If someone posts asking for information and is
obviously new to astrology, first of all you post your normal "Capricorn"
response, then the cynics (what else can I call them?) will get on the
bandwagon and post more advice regarding the non-validity of astrology.
You might consider these friendly postings, but to someone new to
astrology, and this newsgroup in particular, they wouldn't seem so, nor
would they indicate anyone here with any interest in helping the
poster with astrology. Maberry, bless her/his heart, tries to put things
right *G* and open channels of discussion.
> Secondly, how are anyone's rights to privacy and freedom of speech
> affected? If you want your statements to be accorded privacy, don't
> make them in a public newsgroup. Furthermore, the presence on USENET of
> readers who will tend to react unfavorably to your statements does not
> take away your complete freedom to make those statements.
I don't mean privacy in the "PGP" sense of the word. I mean having the
right to privacy and freedom of speech meaning the right to post
astrological content without being ridiculed or harassed - Ann Shermann
doesn't even post anymore - why do you think that is? Where's Adonis?
When people are put in the position of having to be defensive regarding
posting material relevant to the newsgroup in question, some of them
won't post. If the cynics disappeared I don't think anyone would mourn.
As far as the cynics being "civil"; that usually ends after the 2nd or
so return post by an astrologer, then the cynic switches to ridicule or
condescension...pomposity is pretty popular also.
>
> The term "cynic" is a two-edged sword. Am I the only person who finds
> something coldly cynical about the sustained attempt, which went on for
> several years before I showed up, by various pro-astrology people to
> appropriate this newsgroup for the sole purpose of pro-astrology
> postings.
That was the *intent* of the newsgroup, to be pro-astrology, whether or
not the person starting it was savvy enough to include such in the FAQ.
The cynics take advantage of oversight or ignorance of protocol and use
it; in their little minds it probably evidences intellectual superiority
rather than disregard for others. Now Sherilyn, I find it hard to accept
that you were hovering over ALL the USENET newsgroups, spotted this
horrendous appropriation of *alt.astrology* by pro-astrology usurpers,
recognized it as a violation of USENET and human rights, and felt it your
duty to remedy same *G* I'm not attacking you, I'm suspect of motive. I
get caught up in this non-productive argument because I object in
principle to the crashing of the newsgroup by cynics. Let them go argue
scientific proof with David Bohm.
Sherilyn
In article <uaTFcJA3...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
...
> if you
>*genuinely* want an open minded discussion I would be happy to
>participate.
Well, I guess at first we'd better see if we agree on precisely what
we're talking about. Are we agreed that we can class astrology as a
form of divination in which measurements of a class of external events
outside human control (the movements of the stars and planets) are
related in a variety of ways to the concerns of the individual human?
I'm not wedded to the above definition, but I'd like to place it before
you as a first draft to see if we can reach agreement on basic terms.
--
ell...@idt.net
>> The truth that is the composition of all truths is that you have
>> spammed and you have had accounts taken because of it.
>No, the truth is I am harrassed by vindictive and jealous persons such
>as yourself.
Poor baby. The truth is you harrased, bullied, spammed and complained
and when you got punished for spamming you whined. You continue to
confirm you are nothing but a spoiled brat that can't handle not
getting your own way.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> [subject line restored]> <astro...@cosmos.com> writes
...
> >Thats what you get for thinking for once-I never said I learned
> >anything-because there was nothing to learn-except the math so that you
> >spin and propagandist so-called debunkers (meaning in actuality
> >harrassers) could not cancel accounts from spam charges.
> You mean you had to learn that the 83 spam "FAQ" postings you made in 45
> days was greater than 19? That's a rather weak excuse, Edmond.
I don't pay attention to counts-if that were the case you cynics have
broken all records for off topic posts, violating charters and spamming
yourselves. I have done nothing compared to the abuse heaped on usenet
by you self righteous spin doctors who are immature adolescents that
can't allow others to believe what they wish and can't argue well enough
to convince anyone otherwise.
SNIP!
> >> Edmond's subject line was:
> >> Subject: Tr...@Beauty.com sock puppet extrordianaire
> >> I have corrected it.
> >Snip! And I have corrected you.
> Here's another lesson for you, Edmond. "Snip!" does not actually remove
> any of my words--or yours--from the server or from dejanews.
DUH! Nor does it erase the fact that you are out of integrity, you can
never stop me and I will be around with my view until them cows come
home YYYYYYyeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Thats Southwestern USA for;
EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!:-)))))))))))
Snip! Here's another lesson for you.
True FAQ
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
--
Magalina Tagalina upataca wacamana, upataca waca was her name. She had
two teeth in the center of her mouth-one pointed north and the other
pointed south. But Magalina Tagalina upataca wacamana, upataca waca was
her name. She had two eyes in the center of her head, one was green and
the other one was red-but Magalina Tagalina upataca wacamana,
upatacawaca was her name. She had a nose as long as a hose and sometimes
it curled up like a rose-but Magalina Tagalina upataca wacamana
upatacawana was her name.
One day a two ton truck, ran over Magadaline, and the poor old guy had
to buy a new machine!!
But Magadalina Tagalina upatacawacamana, upatacawaca was her name.
Edmond Wollmann
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:27:32 -0700, Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> wrote:
> How so?
Well let me tell you Mr. Knows not about astrology-typical public
opinion of what astrology is, is what is regarded as what is in the
newspaper or what is on 900 lines or some simpleton thing "for fun."
Now this is the reason the creator of the group put in "serious
astrology" that means ALL OTHER THAN THAT PUBLIC PERCEPTION.
Which would be what real astrology is. Now don't start your disingenuous
specious crap with the rest of the cynical skepti-cult take over and
tell me that it means anything else. Because it doesn't and it doesn't
mean we aren't open to QUESTIONS about what it is-but you cannot argue
what it is because you don't know what it is and if you don't know what
it is you cannot argue what it aint.
Pick yourselves up by the boostraps you lowlifes and try to have some
diginity for once in your miserably preoccupied debunking immature
existance and acknowledge that fact.
And if you don't "believe" in it (which is all you are capble of doing
with your miniscule knowledge base of it) don't read it.
The real FAQ written by an astrologer is at
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
ell...@idt.net
In article <3467DD...@sdsu.com>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>SNIP!
>Please refrain from posting your fake faq, thats about 200 times now you
>have spammed a worthless FAQ to this group....
It has NOT been spammed Edie. Please refrain from lying (if you can)!
LazzWaldo
Hey, Ed!
I have an email wherein you claim that you are not bothered by any of this, I
have public postings by you where you claim you are not bothered....
So since you are still whining, complaining, and seeking attention, we must
assume that have lied again.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
In the future, please try to post something on astrology. Thanks.
I have been a student of the Ollowman System and find it quite fascinating. It
can actually be scientifically tested and it never fails.
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ed169749...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
...
> Do you really think an
>astrologer would start a newsgroup to argue validity?
Assuming the person who founded this newsgroup was an astrologer _and_
agrees with your assessment, we can play some nice games with this
suggestion. For instance, also back in 1991, Scott Goering founded
alt.religion.scientology. Scott is a long-time opponent of scientology.
I guess that using Foxlogic, I could say "Do you really think an
opponent of scientology would found a newsgroup to promote scientology?"
and then I could go and complain to Andrew Milne's news admin every time
he made a posting promoting scientology. N'est-ce pas?
Of course not, the argument from first motives is absurd. A newsgroup
is for discussion, and the only way to enforce strict censorship is to
make a moderated group.
--
Sherilyn
In article <3467ec7a...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
<bra...@erols.com> writes
>On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:28:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>>> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
>>
>>truths. If there was only one truth, there would only be your version.
In this case, this happens to be the case. My version is that you
spammed. My version is the only truth. It's everybody else's version,
too--those people who can see the evidence and are committed to
truthfulness, that is.
>>Forcing or insisting on your version is not only not explempary of an
>>understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
>>discernments.
What am I _forcing_? I'm just presenting the evidence. You cannot
change or defeat the truth.
>>That the truth is you and your insecure cynical mates will not be
>>content unless you are misrepresenting and smearing me with propagadic
>>spin doctoring-because with every attempt you prove the I have stated
>>the truth and that I am indeed the threatening and unbeatable astrologer
>>you cannot defeat.
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes, I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come here!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming toyou. I'll
bite your legs off!
>
> Your refusal to accept defeat has nothing to do with whether or not
>you *were* defeated. It might be an indication, though, that you are
>considerably below genius level on scales of intelligence *other* than
>the ones you mentioned.
>
> (Just some of my own "pure perception" and a small slice of that
>many-truth you keep talking about.)
>
> Brant
>
><snip>
Greg Lynn
In article <3467DC...@sdsu.com>, woll...@sdsu.com says...
> EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!:-)))))))))))
>
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1997 Altair Publications
>Astrological Consulting
This doesn't say too much about your credibility Ed...
-Greg
Roger Grandjean
Edmond,
I'd like to buy one of your books. Please be so kind to advise me which one
you would recommend. Which one would be for you the most fundamental? Just
to be honest, I've to tell you: the more I read on astrology, the less I'm
convinced... Please give me the references of one (or two) of your books.
Maybe I haven't read what I should. That's what I'm told by friends who are
adept of astrology. So, I remain open... But, please be serious and
recommend a book that "explain" the main principles. I'm not looking for
public usual "blabla" based on pure belief. I need facts, data, conclusions,
evidences, statistics, analysis, contradictory studies, open questions,
alternative explanations. I am not interested by history, figures that are
not supported by actual facts. I don't care of what was discovered by the
Greeks, the Romans and famous people living in Middle Ages. I'm only
interested by the current (present) theories.
Regards,
Roger.
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <346756...@guess.com>...
>Blue Wolf wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:28:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>>
>> }Sherilyn wrote:
>> }
>> }> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
>> }
>> }There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
>> }truths.
>>
>> The truth that is the composition of all truths is that you have
>> spammed and you have had accounts taken because of it.
>
>No, the truth is I am harrassed by vindictive and jealous persons such
>as yourself.
Sherilyn
In article <64ad4v$8gd$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>, Paul Rumelhart
<pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> writes
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <3467D4...@sdsu.com>...
...
>
>>The real FAQ written by an astrologer is at
[the McPherson FAQ]
>
>That should read "A FAQ written..." or, possibly, "An FAQ written...".
>Depending upon whether you pronounce it "fack" or "effaycue".
>
It's not a bad FAQ, but the section on the purpose of a.a is contrary to
the charter, which takes precedence. There is a pointer to the
McPherson FAQ in the Posting FAQ (URL in my sig).
--
LazzWaldo
> EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!:-)))))))))))
This will be forwarded to his service provider, as I am sure that this type of
behavior is against their AUP.
It seems that Ed has gone off the deep end again. So sad. For someone who brags
about things said on a.a not bothering him, and that "negativity begets
negativity", he does not seem to be able to practice what he preaches.
Let this be additional information to arm yourself with if you are looking to
Ed Wollmann for Astrological counseling.
Bye-bye, Eddie!
Sherilyn
In article <19971111035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, LazzWaldo
<lazz...@aol.com> writes
>Wow, man! Ed Wollmann sure is giving off negative vibes! How un-groovy!
--
Sherilyn
"Abra abracadabra
Gonna reach out and grab ya"
-Steve Miller Band
Sherilyn
[subject line restored]
In article <648qgb$1...@ellis.knirsch.de>, ell...@idt.net writes
>In article <3467DD...@sdsu.com>,
>>Please refrain from posting your fake faq, thats about 200 times now you
>>have spammed a worthless FAQ to this group....
>
>It has NOT been spammed Edie. Please refrain from lying (if you can)!
Weird, since the posting to which Edmond was responding was not a FAQ,
was clearly marked as a repost and had the original posting dates of the
_only_ prior postings (mid-October in both cases) of the two sections in
the body of the posting.
Now I _have_ posted FAQs, but not 200 times. These are the FAQs I have
posted to a.a, and the posting dates:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:14:03 +0100 Stephen Tonkin's FAQ 1.0
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:57:11 +0100 astrology/papers FAQ (draft)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:51:42 +0100 astrology/posting FAQ
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:37:00 +0000 astrology/papers FAQ
I have also quoted various FAQs in the course of discussion on a.a, but
have not spammed FAQ quotations. It occurs to me that Edmond may not
know what spam look like. There are some samples of some of his own
spam at http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann.html
Here is some more I picked out of my personal archive of Edmond's spam.
I offer this in case anybody new is inclined to believe Edmond's lies
about spurious spam complaints being responsible for losing him two
accounts. I'm proud to say he doesn't spam so much these days.
Subject: Re: Brant Watson censorship update
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/19
Message-ID: <344A47...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Brant Watson wrote:
SNIP!
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Sherilyness=Cuteness
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/17
Message-ID: <34481D...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Jim Rogers wrote:
SNIP!
SNIP!
SNIP!
Thank you for your response. It seems that there is an inability to stay
focused on, or to deal with, the issues at hand. I am not really
interested nor inclined to attempt to resolve personal intonations
implicate in these responses.
If my posts serve you use them-if they don't, don't.
I do not ask anyone to believe ANYTHING I say simply on the basis that I
said it.
One must take responsibility for their psychological reactions in
interactions with others that are not conducive to logical resolutions,
nurturing insight, or inspired conversation-and reframe them. I would
really rather discuss issues rather than personalities (which is
fallacious) and wish you the best in your pursuits. It is my sincere
hope that you can rid yourself of this negativity and pettyness. I have
faith that you can, regardless of how miserable you insist on being.
Although healthy competition is always a catalyst, I feel that this
component is out of control and is interfering in this case. I find it
unproductive and would rather not waste time in sarcasm and or blaming.
Time is very important to me and I enjoy personal development and
spirited conversation. I post on usenet with the intention of learning
and/or sharing what I know.
If in the future we can refrain from personal defenses and innuendo I
would be glad to resume with the issues at hand.
Thank you for understanding if I choose not to respond any further in
any other way than this until then.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Rick Ellis still harrassing and off topic
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/18
Message-ID: <344964...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
> Do you think that should allow you to censor our posts? Grow up
> Marsha.
Snip!
You are off topic again Rick.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: [alt.astrology] Posting FAQ - read this before posting
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/18
Message-ID: <344968...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!!!
You are off topic and spamming again.
My ISP informed me to complain to both the usenet.newsgroup and to the
individuals ISP. I am following instructions.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Sherilyn's bogus spam complaints (was Sherilyn's
spamming of FAKE FAQ)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/17
Message-ID: <34477C...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
SNIP
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Another satisfied customer (was Hi new user to the
internet)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/11
Message-ID: <344018...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
Snip! a waste of bandwidth what else...
Post some astrology or shut up.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Capillary-Dynamolysis and Astrology 007
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/02
Message-ID: <34345D...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Yawn.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Kriebles lies about his spam (was Ellis censorship
update)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/24
Message-ID: <345138...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Matt Kriebel wrote:
SNIP!
Youareofftopic.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Edmond's lies about his spam (was Ellis censorship
update)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/24
Message-ID: <345138...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Matt Kriebel wrote:
SNIP!
Youareofftopic.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: HUGE CELESTIAL PORTENTS AND STUFF!
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/16
Message-ID: <3446F4...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <34468F...@remulak.com>, Beldar <bel...@remulak.com>
> writes
> >Linda Savage wrote:
> >> There must be some strange celestial stuff happening, as my life is
> >> getting weirder and weirder by the day.
> >> I was born on 16 March 1962, in the North York area of Toronto
early in
> >> the morning (i.e. between midnight and 2am(ish)). I know there
must be
> >> something up with my stars as home and work can be defined by the
word
> >> CALAMITY! ANyone know anything I might find helpful?
> >Are you Linda Savage the psychotherapist? Who used to live in
> >California? I don't think so but thought I would ask.
> >Beldar
SNIP!
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: The metaphor of a naughty kitty cat (was Re:
Christine's take on Sheri's dick)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/06
Message-ID: <343983...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Still off topic buttwipe.
Post something on astrology please I haven't made fun of the
incompetancy of a cynic yet today.
> This thread is too bizarre for words. I thought twitch was the only
> feline on sci.skeptic.
Spam be gone.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: ANOTHER SHERILYN OFF TOPIC POST!!!! Was Re:
alt.astrology abuse update
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/25
Message-ID: <345231...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.skeptic
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
please stop crossposting this to alt.astrology.
Thanks
> Well, a recently published biography of physicist/astrologer Isaac
> Newton traces his formulation of the law of gravity to his lifelong
> belief in occult forces, so the claim is not entirely without merit.
I
> think the biography in question is part of the Michael White/John
> Gribbin-authored series, but my memory may be betraying me on this. I
> think the conventional story is that he nicked the whole idea from
> Locke.
> I read the rather puzzling Peter Ackroyd novel Hawksmoor a couple of
> years back, with such remnants of the central London/East End
background
> of the novel as Hitler and property speculators had left standing
> (mostly the churches) as my background. This novel's subject matter
is
> the internal battle between occultism and the true "new age" of
science,
> but the rather silly plot lets it down.
SNIP of false faq
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Sherilyn's bogus spam complaints (was Sherilyn's
spamming of FAKE FAQ)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/15
Message-ID: <34455B...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Please stop crossposting to irrelevant groups. I have removed
sci.skeptic (or alt.astrology) to separate obvious conflicting realities
that for years have proven will go nowhere.
I have reviewed your questions and responses. Much of what you have
requested is either easily obtainable information through study at the
beginners level, is simply irrelevant, a matter of opinion, or has been
answered by me many times in different ways. Since classes are widely
offered on the subjects, and texts available that you seem to not be
interested in, I can only assume that perhaps you are being
disingenuous. Simply challenging and seeking to create dissention is
immature and powerless behavior. Please try to take some responsibility
for your lack of effort on the issues at hand and negative behavior.
Since I am very busy and wish to answer as many of those who are truly
interested and not just seeking to tie things up or aggravate because of
bias and prejudice, I will have to recommend that you either review the
subject on your own with more diligence or seek the information via Deja
News retrieval system or some other Usenet search engine. I have dozens
of articles and over 8000 posts (old and new) covering an extremely wide
variety of questions relevant to your issues and questions.
Everything we are and have is the result of effort.
Thanks for your maturity in this matter.
You have been here arguing against a subject you have no interest in
only to derogate and try to belittle persons who prefer to study and
discuss their subject. This is a powerless view.
Anyone such as this obviously has nothing to be for and does not
understand positive application and self directed behavior-one who seeks
to protect others from themselves which is not possible. We cannot be
responsible FOR people only to them by being all that we can be in
integrity-therefore you are irresponsible.
Anyone who has to FORCE their opinion on others obviously does not
believe in the power and validity of what they prefer.
--
"You don't know what it means to live and you cheat and you lie, you
don't even know how to say goodbye! It makes me want to cry, cry,
cry..." Godley and Creme "Cry"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Sherilyn - king of the Sock Puppets
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com>
Date: 1997/11/07
Message-ID: <3463F6...@sdsu.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
POT KETTLE BLACK
Snip!
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Time tracks + gif was Energy from signs not planets
(was The Disposition of planets)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@rohan.sdsu.edu>
Date: 1997/10/16
Message-ID: <344696...@rohan.sdsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
+++++++++++
Subject: Re: Challenge to Astrologers
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/08
Message-Id: <3414BE...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Please stop crossposting to irrelevant groups. I have removed
sci.skeptic (or alt.astrology) to separate obvious conflicting realities
that for years have proven will go nowhere.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Question to Astrologers
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/07
Message-Id: <341254...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
Snip!
No date yet eh?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Astrology as a valid topic of discussion
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/07
Message-Id: <3412F8...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
You are off topic please read the FAQ.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Rectification revisited (was Re: Why???)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/07
Message-Id: <341394...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Brant Watson wrote:
SNIP!
Sci.skeptic removed.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Another satisfied customer (was Hi new user to the
internet)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/11
Message-Id: <344018...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
Snip! a waste of bandwidth what else...
Post some astrology or shut up.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Astrology and the court system
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-Id: <3419D1...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Complaints can be sent to
ab...@demon.net, posta...@demon.net
> For the Sherilyn was a psychic rapist, you see.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Edmond Wollmann's sock puppets (was PROPOSAL:
alt.astrology.no-skeptics)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/30
Message-Id: <3431AA...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
Snip!
Was there a point in there somewhere?:-))))
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: WHo is Edmond Wollmann? (was Why astrology works)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/21
Message-Id: <342537...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
SNIP!
Obviously someone very important to get all these headers all the time
(and threatening-just can't resist trying to down him,eh?:-)))
--
"Middle of the road, is a private cul-de-sac, I can't get from the cab
to the curb without some little jerk on my back!" The Pretenders "Middle
of The Road"
Subject: Re: Earl Curley: an offer to settle libel action
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-Id: <341577...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
[More Headers]
J. White wrote:
SNIP!
alt.astrology removed, further posts will result in ISP complaints.
Please refrain.
> > Because it is the real hidden source of Zero Aries.
> >
> > Now you know.
>
> ROTFLMA!!!!
> --
> J. White /\ ?
> Lowly Chartist /\ / \/
> Technical Heretic / \/
> http://www.hooked.net/users/whitetek
> /\ /\/
> /\/ \ /\ /
> / \/ \/
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Demon abuse addressCensored alt.astrology?--try
moderating it (was obsessive net abuse of alt.astrology by rick ellis)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-Id: <34157B...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Howard Goldstein wrote:
SNIP!
<ab...@demon.net> (Demon Internet Abuse Reports)
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: Sherilyness=Cuteness
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/17
Message-Id: <34481D...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Jim Rogers wrote:
SNIP!
SNIP!
SNIP!
Thank you for your response. It seems that there is an inability to stay
focused on, or to deal with, the issues at hand. I am not really
interested nor inclined to attempt to resolve personal intonations
implicate in these responses.
If my posts serve you use them-if they don't, don't.
I do not ask anyone to believe ANYTHING I say simply on the basis that I
said it.
One must take responsibility for their psychological reactions in
interactions with others that are not conducive to logical resolutions,
nurturing insight, or inspired conversation-and reframe them. I would
really rather discuss issues rather than personalities (which is
fallacious) and wish you the best in your pursuits. It is my sincere
hope that you can rid yourself of this negativity and pettyness. I have
faith that you can, regardless of how miserable you insist on being.
Although healthy competition is always a catalyst, I feel that this
component is out of control and is interfering in this case. I find it
unproductive and would rather not waste time in sarcasm and or blaming.
Time is very important to me and I enjoy personal development and
spirited conversation. I post on usenet with the intention of learning
and/or sharing what I know.
If in the future we can refrain from personal defenses and innuendo I
would be glad to resume with the issues at hand.
Thank you for understanding if I choose not to respond any further in
any other way than this until then.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Astrology and the court system
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/13
Message-Id: <341ACB...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Complaints can be sent to ab...@demon.net, postm...@demon.net
> For the Sherilyn was a psychic rapist, you see.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: (was Hypocritical Sherilyn cuts her(his) own throat)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-Id: <341578...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,
[More Headers]
Stan Kalisch III wrote:
SNIP!
You are off topic, wasting bandwidth and powerless with drivel to boot.
-
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.astrology.no-skeptics
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/29
Message-Id: <34304F...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
SNIP! sci.skeptic removed because there isn't any there-and it is off
topic.
****** ANSWERS ******
1) For what sort of discussions is alt.astrology intended?
Answer: Alt.astrology is intended as a forum for astrologers of
all levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced, to discuss
astrological topics.
Alt.astrology is *not* intended as a forum for disbelievers to
voice their contempt for astrologers or to harass astrologers
about their belief in astrology and demand of them scientific
proof. Groups discussing the scientific validity of theories are
prefixed with "sci." If you wish to discuss the validity of
astrology as a discipline (as opposed to the validity of specific
theoretical statements within the domain of astrology), the
appropriate group on which to post is sci.skeptic. Here is the
statement of purpose for that group:
"Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims of
the paranormal to meet with those who believe in the paranormal.
In this way the paranormalists can expose their ideas to
scientific scrutiny, and if there is anything in these ideas
then the skeptics might learn something."
Sci.skeptic often contains long discussions of scientific
evidence for and against specific astrological hypotheses, and
such discussion is welcome in that group. Further, many members
of that group are qualified to evaluate scientific evidence. The
astrologers in this group who enjoy participating in such
discussion with skeptics read and post to sci.skeptic.
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Time tracks + gif was Energy from signs not planets
(was The Disposition of planets)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@rohan.sdsu.edu>
Date: 1997/10/16
Message-Id: <344696...@rohan.sdsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Subject: Re: Rick Ellis still harrassing and off topic
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/18
Message-Id: <344964...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
> Do you think that should allow you to censor our posts? Grow up
> Marsha.
Snip!
You are off topic again Rick.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: [alt.astrology] Posting FAQ - read this before posting
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/18
Message-Id: <344968...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!!!
You are off topic and spamming again.
My ISP informed me to complain to both the usenet.newsgroup and to the
individuals ISP. I am following instructions.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Sherilyn's bogus spam complaints (was Sherilyn's
spamming of FAKE FAQ)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/17
Message-Id: <34477C...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Rick Ellis wrote:
SNIP
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Capillary-Dynamolysis and Astrology 007
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/10/02
Message-Id: <34345D...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
Yawn.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Subject: Re: Does it work?
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-Id: <34157D...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
SNIP!
You are off topic, sci.skeptic removed
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Subject: Re: $1.2 million award.
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/09/08
Message-Id: <341449...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
[More Headers]
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
SNIP!
You are off topic.
--
...My evenings are taken up very largely with
astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order
to find a clue to the core of psychological truth.
C. G. Jung, in a letter to Sigmund Freud.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
asrtrologer
Your client is still harrassing, spamming and off topic.
Path:
newshub.sdsu.edu!newshub.csu.net!usc!howland.erols.net!recycled.news.erols.com!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!sidaway.demon.co.uk!Sherilyn
From:
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, sci.skeptic
Subject:
Studies on astrology
Date:
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:58:44 +0000
Organization:
None
Distribution:
world
Message-ID:
<VWrmakA0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
sidaway.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host:
sidaway.demon.co.uk [158.152.43.216]
MIME-Version:
1.0
X-Newsreader:
Turnpike Version 3.03 <gVS+aKm0cp1qKo3xs4GXMuYkcI>
Lines:
6
Xref:
newshub.sdsu.edu alt.astrology:160765
sci.skeptic:445057
http://www.skepsis.no/english/subject/astrology/studies.html
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <64ad4v$8gd$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>, Paul Rumelhart
> <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> writes
> >
> >Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <3467D4...@sdsu.com>...
> ...
> >
> >>The real FAQ written by an astrologer is at
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> [the McPherson FAQ]
> >
> >That should read "A FAQ written..." or, possibly, "An FAQ written...".
> >Depending upon whether you pronounce it "fack" or "effaycue".
> >
> It's not a bad FAQ, but the section on the purpose of a.a is contrary to
> the charter, which takes precedence. There is a pointer to the
> McPherson FAQ in the Posting FAQ (URL in my sig).
> --
PZ Myers
> Your client is still harrassing, spamming and off topic.
Wollmann, it is *extremely* hard to keep you killfiled when you keep
trotting out new sock puppets.
By the way, it is rather pathetic when you can't even spell "astrologer"
correctly, bozo.
--
PZ Myers
ell...@idt.net
In article <19971111204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
LazzWaldo <lazz...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3467DC...@sdsu.com>, woll...@sdsu.com says...
>
>
>> EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!:-)))))))))))
>
>This will be forwarded to his service provider, as I am sure that this type of
> behavior is against their AUP.
>
>It seems that Ed has gone off the deep end again. So sad. For someone who brags
> about things said on a.a not bothering him, and that "negativity begets
> negativity", he does not seem to be able to practice what he preaches.
I guess you haven't seen his spew today of 8 mostly duplicate complaints
about sherilyn. He accuses sherilyn of "crossposting". Of course the
complaints he posted are all crossposted. <grin>
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
Your client still crossposting against the charter for this group.
=========Charter for alt.astrology.metapsych=========
Charter: This group is for astrologers and students of astrology or
practicing therapists and psychologists to discuss aspects of astrology
primarily-but not limited to psychological/metaphysical/spiritual
approaches of counsel and practice. This includes;
1) Personal analysis of horoscopes based on full data and information.
2) Psychological approaches and remediation methods in counsel.
3) Psychological fields of approach.
4) Metaphysical and/or spiritual approaches and their connections.
5) Humanistic, holistic or other modern or otherwise defined as new age
approaches.
Since this group is proposed on the basis of ethical and respectable
service oriented counsel and astrological application, the following
classes of posts are not welcome;
1) Advertisements of any sort (other than normal sig file references
related to this group).
2) Arguments as to the validity of astrology AT ALL, either
scientifically or theologically.
3) Cynical or otherwise detracting and negative and conflictive
argumentation that deviates from the subject matter.
4) JPEG's, GIF's or other images not specifically related to topic
discussion.
5) Defamation or derogatory/abusive attacks on individuals simply
because of disagreement.
There are no restrictions regarding methods, systems, or philosophies
regarding application techniques. All astrological applications are
welcome and/or services employing such as a part of their service.
Innovative techniques and the integration of related cross disciplines
to the subject matter are also welcome.
[subject line restored]
In article <648qgb$1...@ellis.knirsch.de>, ell...@idt.net writes
>In article <3467DD...@sdsu.com>,
>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>>SNIP!
>>Please refrain from posting your fake faq, thats about 200 times now
ou> >>have spammed a worthless FAQ to this group....
Edmond Wollmann
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann put down a bottle of something long enough to peck:
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:27:32 -0700, Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> wrote:
> >> : That was the *intent* of the newsgroup, to be pro-astrology,
> >> How so?
> >Well let me tell you Mr. Knows not about astrology-typical public
> >opinion of what astrology is, is what is regarded as what is in the
> >newspaper or what is on 900 lines or some simpleton thing "for fun."
> >Now this is the reason the creator of the group put in "serious
> >astrology" that means ALL OTHER THAN THAT PUBLIC PERCEPTION.
> >Which would be what real astrology is. Now don't start your disingenuous
> >specious crap with the rest of the cynical skepti-cult take over and
> >tell me that it means anything else. Because it doesn't and it doesn't
> >mean we aren't open to QUESTIONS about what it is-but you cannot argue
> >what it is because you don't know what it is and if you don't know what
> >it is you cannot argue what it aint.
> I don't normally engage apparent drunks in conversation unless they're
> funny or respond with something relevant, which you aren't and
> haven't, but I came here for the Pete abuse show and discovered it was
> just an opening act for Wollman. Might as well stay till the end.
You must think I am Lazzdildo-he's the one encouraging young persons to
drink alcohol with real sock puppets, probably in front of the tube with
one in his lap under his pot belly while we speak-I haven't even had a
drink of any sort of alcohol in many years-its hard to run 10 miles a
week while drinking. Any more spin doctoring Goldstein? Now you have
destroyed any credibility you might have ever had by confirming that you
are the cynic I assumed you were-all it takes is little (fake) yelling
(from caps) and a name or two in the headers and you cynical insecure
and defensive ego maniacs come out of the woodwork-look at Rick Ellis-he
talks to himself abouty me when I don't answer his posts:-))))
What a bunch of Maroons!:-)))
Snipperdoodle! Isn't astrology fun!? You guys should try posting some
sometime like I do.
--
"Well no matter what you say, no matter what you do, you've got one life
to live it's gonna come back onto you. Oh yes now people, it's something
you can't ignore. I used to be bad but I aint gonna be bad no more! Yes,
I learned my lesson, you're gonna reap just what you sow." Steve Miller
and Paul McCartney "Used To Be Bad"
Edmond Wollmann
Roger Grandjean wrote:
> Edmond,
> I'd like to buy one of your books.
It'll be for sale in about a month.
> Please be so kind to advise me which one
> you would recommend.
I only have written one! But its 500+ pages it will hold you for a
while.
> Which one would be for you the most fundamental? Just
> to be honest, I've to tell you: the more I read on astrology, the less I'm
> convinced...
Then why do you want a book?
> Please give me the references of one (or two) of your books.
> Maybe I haven't read what I should. That's what I'm told by friends who are
> adept of astrology.
What makes you think I care whether you "believe" in something you
haven't taken the time to study? Either study it and disregard it from
investigation-or the other option is accept it-but you can do neither
without investigation. Do I care? Basically no. You lose if you can't
see the value in it-not me. I am just doing what I believe to be helpful
in psychology and astrology. If you are truly interested you will do
your own investigations-just like in science we have to review the
literature thats out there and make best guesstimate decisions on what
we will accept or research further-just the way it is-if you get into
science someday you will see (pardon my assumption but your attitude
superstitiously with astrology leads me to believe you don't understand
investigative scientific and research techniques, if I am wrong I
apologize).
Application is always the "proof" in the pudding.
> So, I remain open... But, please be serious and
> recommend a book that "explain" the main principles. I'm not looking for
> public usual "blabla" based on pure belief. I need facts, data, conclusions,
I would suggest Noel Tyl-Harvard graduate in psychology. His books
outline in modern fashion the psychological fundementals of astrological
delineation in a most professional and useful way. Start with Holistic
Astrology-it is out of print but you can get it at used bookstores-or
Astrology 1-2-3. 0r The Principles and Practice of Astrology, a 12
volume series (also out of print) but these contain the fundementals for
a person interested in remediation and counsel from the psychological
and professional view-in my opinion. I have given a book reading list
several times you can retrieve from Deja News if you are sincere.
> evidences, statistics, analysis, contradictory studies, open questions,
> alternative explanations. I am not interested by history, figures that are
> not supported by actual facts. I don't care of what was discovered by the
> Greeks, the Romans and famous people living in Middle Ages. I'm only
> interested by the current (present) theories.
Well, Noel Tyl's and many other good astrologers have it upgraded for
current psychological theory-but the next question is how up on current
psychological theory are you to make use of them?
> Regards,
> Roger.
--
...My evenings are taken up very largely with
astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order
to find a clue to the core of psychological truth.
C. G. Jung, in a letter to Sigmund Freud.
ell...@idt.net
>Your client still crossposting against the charter for this group.
Which charter is that Edie? There is no charter for alt.astrology
that prohibits crossposting. Your complaint is clearly just another
of your bullying attempts to censor alt.astrology to prevent critics
from pointing out the tons of used cow food in your posts.
ell...@idt.net
In article <66i64s.dg...@bbs.mpcs.com>,
Howard Goldstein <hgol...@bbs.mpcs.com> wrote:
>I don't normally engage apparent drunks in conversation unless they're
>funny or respond with something relevant
Edie claimed just the other day that he doesn't drink. Either he was
lying or he lost his best excuse.
LazzWaldo
Eddie Wollmann whined:
>No, the truth is I am harrassed by vindictive and jealous persons such
>as yourself.
You can only be harrassed if you are powerless and weak. If you were strong and
truly part of "All That Is" you would be strong enough to not claim
harrassment. You're obviously giving your power away. How sad.
LazzWaldo
Brant Watson
On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:28:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> I do have an obsession, and that is truthfulness.
>
>There is no one truth-except that the truth is the composition of all
>truths. If there was only one truth, there would only be your version.
>Forcing or insisting on your version is not only not explempary of an
>understanding of the truth but is evidence of my intial and accurate
>discernments.
>That the truth is you and your insecure cynical mates will not be
>content unless you are misrepresenting and smearing me with propagadic
>spin doctoring-because with every attempt you prove the I have stated
>the truth and that I am indeed the threatening and unbeatable astrologer
>you cannot defeat.
Your refusal to accept defeat has nothing to do with whether or not
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
SNIP!
"But man, proud man, (in this case a man that calls itself a woman)
Drest in a little brief authority,
(simply because it is usenet literate thinks it can force its opinion)
Most ignorant of what he's most assured, (the subject of astrology)
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
(armed with only passionate bigotry and petty judgment)
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
(persons gullible enough to believe the garbage-itself decieved by the
material world and ego, "Satan")
As make the angels weep (that destroys the spiritual state, truth,
justice, good faith).
William Shakespeare, 1564-1616
Measure for Measure, II, ii.
W/apllicable interpretations to the alt.astrology terrorist
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk skepticult usenet hacker and post twisting
degenerate.
Sherilyn@sidaway to children;
"Well kids I got another poster of diverse and interesting material
canceled today because they posted a FAQ just one too many times and I
didn't like the subject matter! Isn't daddy smart?
I replaced it with disrupting name calling, URL spamming with
disingenuous and misleading FAQs, decieving new people who are
interested by answering all queries with "Capricorn," incessant
crossposting to conflicting groups that no one on either side desires,
lie fabrications, spin doctoring, specious arguments, attempts to
discredit, and talk of transvestitism!
(PS I even tried to discredit the guidelines and diagnoses
FOR transvestitism-The DSM-IV 4th and most current psychological
diagnostic manual 4th edition,... shhhh I don't think anyone noticed
while I was hypocrtically calling others liars- that I was
unknowledgable of the very thing I boast about being!)
Then, the person I attempted to debunk and discredit is STILL there and
has not been hurt in any way! He even predicted as a part of a post
entitled "Riddle for the insightful" that it would happen- proving he is
the astute perciever that your daddy would like to believe HE is! Now
his victory will proceed and I will fade into the obscurity I arose
from.
I wasted everyones time and tons of bandwidth on usenet to do it!
Aren't you proud of your daddy?!"
--
Merlin returns for Arthur at his birth as promised by Uther for favors;
Uther to Merlin; "To kill and be King is that all?"
Merlin; "perhaps not even that."
Uther; "Merlin you strike me with words hard as steel!"
Merlin; "You betrayed the Duke, you stole his wife, you took his
castle-now no one trusts you! You are not the one!"
Arthur to Lancelot upon confrontation at the bridge;
"Your arrogance bores me! Draw your sword so that I may humble you and
your arrogant boasts and with one mighty blow of Excalibur send you into
the sea!
Lancelot: Your zeal blinds you to the truth! It is not a wild boast
sir-but a curse, for I have never been defeated in joust or duel and
seek a king worthy of my service as his humble knight."
Aurthur to Merlin after his death;
"Merlin is that you? Are you a dream now?"
Merlin;
"A dream to some-to others a nightmare!"
"You see Arthur, love is like this bread. You never know what it will be
like until you've tasted it, and then of course.......its too late."
Merlin
Merlin the magician said after victory by King Arthur over evil
throughout the land; "Be silent, be still, thats it. And look upon this
moment. Savor it. Rejoice with great gladness, great gladness. Remember
it always, for you are joined by it, you are one under the stars!
Remember it well then, this night, this great victory. So that in the
years ahead you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur the King!
For it is the doom of men that they forget."
LazzWaldo
Re: Howard Goldstein's impeccably worded and sober retort:
Yeah, what HE said!
Brant Watson
This is a riot. Ed has just responded to seven of Sherilyn's posts
in a row. In each post, Sherilyn deals specifically with astrology
and web site references which deal specifically with astrology. In
one of the posts the comment has to do with an astrology FAQ.
So each of Sherilyn's posts is *entirely* withing the topic of
astrology...
YET...
Ed posts complaint follow-ups to each of the seven posts, claiming
they are off topic. This makes all seven of *Ed's* posts off-topic.
What genius!
(BTW, this post is off topic, too. I'll take my punishment like a
man.)
Brant
Paul Schlyter
> you would recommend. Which one would be for you the most fundamental? Just
> to be honest, I've to tell you: the more I read on astrology, the less I'm
> Maybe I haven't read what I should. That's what I'm told by friends who are
> recommend a book that "explain" the main principles. I'm not looking for
> public usual "blabla" based on pure belief. I need facts, data, conclusions,
> alternative explanations. I am not interested by history, figures that are
> not supported by actual facts. I don't care of what was discovered by the
> Greeks, the Romans and famous people living in Middle Ages. I'm only
> interested by the current (present) theories.
>
> Roger.
Don't bother with Ed's books -- they don't exist anyway. The only
things Ed ever has "published" are all his Usenet posts, and perhaps
a few articles in some astrology magazines.
Instead I'd recommend "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology - A Ciritical
Review 1900-1976" by Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, published
in Dec 1977 by The Astrological Assocaition, England. This book is
nowadays hard to find -- it's been out of print since many years. However
it did have a great impact on the astrological community: this book meant
the end of attempting "exact predictions" by astrologers, which earlier
had not been that uncommon. Since then, astrologers have escaped into
mystiscism and evading the verifyable, since they know quite well that
attempts to verify the verifyable in astrology will most likely fail.
This book is shock full of correlation studies of many different
kinds.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Lady Nidiffer
ell...@idt.net wrote in article <64b3j8$d...@ellis.knirsch.de>...
Yes, it's possible Ed is violating SDSU posting guidelines as stated:
1.1.1. Students shall not transmit unsolicited information which contains
obscene, offensive or discriminatory material to another individual, a
mailing list, a news group or a public area on a SDSU computer. Although
mailing list subscribers and/or news group readers are considered to have
solicited all postings, students shall not submit entries to news groups
and/or mailing lists which are considered inappropriate by the recipients.
Repeated transmission of material to a person who finds such transmission
offensive, obscene or discriminatory will be treated as harassment and is
against SDSU and/or State and Federal regulations. A report will be made to
SDSU Judicial Procedures for determination of appropriate disciplinary
action.
---------------
Full text here:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/policy.html
Lady Nidiffer
Free astrology software for fun and giggles :)
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~wnidiffe/fun.html
LazzWaldo
> Your client is still harrassing, spamming and off topic.
Uh, Eddie, the complainant has to have a valid email address, not a forged one,
for the ISP to take a complaint seriously.
IOW, you are wasting bandwidth.
Please stick to the topic of this group, which is asrtology.
Is there a combination of aspects and houses that affects someones spelling
proficiency? The Moon in Aries, perhaps?
satori
Hi Sherilyn. How's it going dood?
Well even though you've never once told me, in depth, what mornington
crescent moon was, I forgive ya.
As far as everyone else...I looked up on this. It's not "astrology", but
rather a mind game. Now you know why Sherilyn raves about it so.
Here's an address to a FAQ I found on it that describes it somewhat.
Thealt.games.mornington.cres(c)ent.FAQ
I got this from your http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d51vmk/mc_resources.html
address that you have given out.
It seems in this faq it describes Americans as "stupid". hhmmm..prejudism.
Suits what I've seen in this forum from Sherilyn so far. It also says that
it's a very addictive game and suggests counseling.
Hey Sherilyn, you might need to take that advice. Go browse this and get
the address of the counselors that are offered here.
<hahahahaha> Otherwise, I'm going to be researching this a bit more and
maybe I will just start to play too. I have quite a few friends over there
in London, they may enjoy playing the game with me.
Thanks for the insight, FINALLY, as to your <ahem> supposed astrology
system. Boy, you really had them going, and me too, didn't you Sherilyn?
Sly devil you!
Satori!
Sherilyn wrote in message ...
>In article <346776...@cosmos.com>, astrologer
><astro...@cosmos.com> writes
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>
> [discussion of a.a group charter with Fox]
>
>>SNIP! Quite off topic.
>
> Not so. Group charter discussions are always on topic in alt.*
> newsgroups, and if this were a Big 8 newsgroup we would have
> to discuss it in news.groups. Please read the relevant
> FAQs.
>
>>Please post just ONE post on astrology
>
>[ad hominem ignored]
>
>Some astrological postings you might have missed earlier.
>
>1) Ethics of the Mornington Crescent System
> (first posted Oct 14th)
>
> In article <34430412...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
> <bra...@erols.com> writes
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:34:44 +0100, Sherilyn
> ><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3441b00d...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
> >><bra...@erols.com> writes
> ...
> >>> I am quite interested in the Mornington Crescent System.
> ...
> >As for learning
> >the system, I don't think I will be able to take the time.
> >Please forgive me if I have committed some kind of astrological
> >faux pas by asking you for a free reading.
>
> No problem. The Mornington Crescent Code of Ethics forbids
> charging for teaching the principles of the system, on the basis
> that it teaches respect for the fruits of commonsense and
> reason--which are of course chargeable.
> ...
> >
> >Father forgive me...I have been thinking capricornian
> >thoughts! But seriously, I think capricorn fits me better.
>
> You goat, you.
> >
> >>It's a truly powerful system for enhancing your self-
> >>awareness.
> >
> > I will learn as much as I can about it. Thanks. BTW, can it
> >be used to predict the stock market or diagnose medical
> >problems?
> >
> The beauty of the system is that it is applied commonsense.
> Thus, in all professions, you will find the best and most
> reliable practitioners are already practising this technique--
> ithout realising it is a form of astrology.
>
>2) Resources.
> (first posted Oct 20th)
>
> In article <$uK1BDA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
> <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <EerOGBAz...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> ><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >>...
> >>In fairness, I think it's as well to point out that if Edmond
> >>didn't provide such an interesting sideshow there would be a
> >>lot more discussion of the validity of astrology going on--and
> >>I think Edmond is well aware of this and suspects he wouldn't
> >>like that one bit
> >
> >You are wrong. He is a first class astrologer and very
> >sincere.
>
> I don't doubt that, in terms of astrology, he is as competent as
> they come. But I don't see that it alters my strong perception
> that he is very uneasy with the idea of people discussing the
> validity of astrology in alt.astrology.
>
> > My
> >point is that there is no reason for engaging you in discussion
> >as we are never likely to agree. You have made your mind up -
> >which is fine. I have made mine up and this is fine too. If
> >you are indifferent to astrology as you say you are then we
> >don't have anything to argue about.
>
> No problem.
>
> >>
> >>but dissident ideas (such as my bit of Mornington Crescent
> >>agitprop)
> >
> >As a matter of interest, why have I heard of Mornington
> >Crescent?
>
> Good news gets around. ;)
>
> Seriously (if that is the right word)
>
> http://aurora.york.ac.uk/mc_em.html
>
> Check out this excellent resources page:
>
> http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d51vmk/mc_resources.html
>
> with an honorable mention to:
>
> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~dma/ProfX/
Marsha
"PZ Manners" wrote:
> Please learn to edit your posts.
...
> refer, and merely adding a 3-line request, is very poor etiquette.
My, how dainty we can be. Now we are worried about *etiquette* on
alt.astrology. Some people can be disgusting, repulsive, inhuman and act
as if they're possessed by demons from hell! But if someone who is
pro-astrology quotes too many lines in her reply (and of course deleting
too many is a no-no too), "Ms(r). Manners" will be there to keep her in
line!
> --
> PZ Myers
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
satori wrote:
Alt.astrology.metapsych removed
For your newsgroups file:
alt.astrology.metapsych Discussion of astrology
metaphysically/psychologically/spiritually.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Edmond Wollmann
alt.astrology.metapsych removed.
Please ask your client to stop crossposting off topic and follow the
charter guidelines.
Thanks
Path:
news.pacbell.net!news.pbi.net!207.172.3.50.MISMATCH!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!netaxs.com!myers
From:
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers)
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, sci.skeptic,
alt.astrology.metapsych
Subject:
Re: REPOST: Mornington Crescent
System--introduction and support material and resources
Date:
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:14:57 -0500
Organization:
Net Access - Philadelphia's Original ISP
Lines:
12
Message-ID:
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>
References:
<MPG.ece39df1...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><346776...@cosmos.com>
<flIUmEA0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk><3467DD...@sdsu.com>
<648qgb$1...@ellis.knirsch.de>
<pmipGWAT...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
<64d0lc$b32$1...@usenet89.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
chestnut1-35.slip.netaxs.com
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
X-Newsreader:
Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.4.0
Xref:
news.pacbell.net alt.astrology:87894
sci.skeptic:219232 alt.astrology.metapsych:4602
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <64d0lc$b32$1...@usenet89.supernews.com>, "satori"
> <sat...@comwerx.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Sherilyn, I went to this address that you gave on Ed's spamming and it
> > wasn't there any longer. Do you have another reference to go by instead of
> > the half messages down below? I'd truly like to see them.
>
> Please learn to edit your posts. Quoting 800+ lines to which you do not even
> refer, and merely adding a 3-line request, is very poor etiquette.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Sue Armitage
In article <zDbTBBAe...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <uaTFcJA3...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>...
>> if you
>>*genuinely* want an open minded discussion I would be happy to
>>participate.
>
>Well, I guess at first we'd better see if we agree on precisely what
>we're talking about. Are we agreed that we can class astrology as a
>form of divination in which measurements of a class of external events
>outside human control (the movements of the stars and planets) are
>related in a variety of ways to the concerns of the individual human?
Not exactly, no....... I don't use astrology as a means of divination,
or, at least I would never make specific predictions. Also, I don't
consider that the actual movement of the planets makes anyone *do*
anything. The kind of astrology I practice is closely aligned to
psychology (Jung) and the archetypes which appear in mythology. All the
planets are associated with mythological characters which describe the
qualities of that planet. This is naturally totally unscientific and
the energies are symbolic. I will tell you now that it is totally
unprovable by scientific means but if you are genuinely interested we
could talk about it.......
>
>I'm not wedded to the above definition, but I'd like to place it before
>you as a first draft to see if we can reach agreement on basic terms.
Queensberry Rules??
--
LazzWaldo
Yeah, c'mon, PZ, give her a break. Pretty please?
Brant Watson
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:03:28 -0800, astrologer <astro...@cosmos.com>
wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>SNIP! Quite off topic. Please post just ONE post on astrology-if your
>tiny cranium can handle it.
Ed,
It appeared to me that seven of Sherilyn's most recent posts were
specifically about astrology. These seem to be the ones you are
complaining about. Yet at least eight of your responses, including
the one quoted here, have nothing whatsoever to say about the subject
of astrology.
Sorry again folks, my post is as off topic as Ed's, but then, I'm
not the one complaining. Just pointing out his extreme double
standards.
Oh, and I'm impressed that you corrected the spelling of your own
screen name..."astrologer." It must be embarrassing for a consummate
professional like yourself to misspell your own profession, especially
when you are using it essentially as a signature and means of
identifying yourself. Do you use that much care and attention to
detail when you read horoscopes and counsel people? (I suspect not.)
Brant
PS. Hey, what does "PUFTA" stand for? Once again, I don't think you
ever told us.
Brant Watson
On 12 Nov 1997 18:20:10 GMT, "Lady Nidiffer" <sheb...@usa.net>
wrote:
Good work! It appears that Ed has violated the posting guidelines
on *all three* counts...repeatedly. And I'm sure their administrator
or judicial board will be equally disturbed to discover that he has
been using numerous accounts to do this.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:19:16 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@sdsu.com> wrote:
,snip>
> I am just doing what I believe to be helpful
>in psychology and astrology.
Or you are taking advantage of people's gullibility in order to make
some money and advance youself so you can take even more.
>If you are truly interested you will do
>your own investigations-just like in science we
There you go again with "we" when referring to science. What you do
has nothing to do with science. Books are as scientifically reliable
as tabloids. How about citing something you've written on astrology
which has been printed in any scientific journal. If you can't do
that, then stop using the we-in-science deception.
>have to review the
>literature thats out there and make best guesstimate decisions on what
>we will accept or research further
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the publication
of *your* book. Are you implying that it has been scientifically
peer-reviewed?
>-just the way it is-if you get into
>science someday you will see (pardon my assumption but your attitude
>superstitiously with astrology leads me to believe you don't understand
>investigative scientific and research techniques, if I am wrong I
>apologize).
Even if your apology was sincere, he would have no reason to accept
it.
>Application is always the "proof" in the pudding.
>
>> So, I remain open... But, please be serious and
>> recommend a book that "explain" the main principles. I'm not looking for
>> public usual "blabla" based on pure belief. I need facts, data, conclusions,
>
>I would suggest Noel Tyl-Harvard graduate in psychology. His books
>outline in modern fashion the psychological fundementals of astrological
>delineation in a most professional and useful way.
And while you're at it, you can learn from his esteemed colleague,
Dr. John Mack, all about how aliens are abducting humans.
<snip>
>...My evenings are taken up very largely with
>astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order
>to find a clue to the core of psychological truth.
> C. G. Jung, in a letter to Sigmund Freud.
Yeah, that's most certainly why he never found it.
Brant
Sherilyn
In article <346A6AE1...@mindspring.com>, Marsha
<sharma!@mindspring.com> writes
>"PZ Manners" wrote:
>> Please learn to edit your posts.
>> refer, and merely adding a 3-line request, is very poor etiquette.
>
>alt.astrology.
I don't believe Paul Myers subscribes to a.a; the post in question was
in sci.skeptic. Satori is a newbie and does indeed make a habit of
posting full quotes of the posts to which she replies, typically only
adding two or three lines.
LazzWaldo
Lazz on the sidelines. Eyebrows raised. In the box seats. (and he's not afraid
to throw his popcorn onto the court if things get boring).
lff...@ceibo.entelnet.bo
In <MPG.ed169749...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>
fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
>In article <66epid.at...@bbs.mpcs.com>, hgol...@mpcs.com >says...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:27:32 -0700, Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> wrote:
>> : That was the *intent* of the newsgroup, to be pro-astrology,
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> : whether or
>> : not the person starting it was savvy enough to include such in the FAQ.
>>
>> Are you referring to the FAQ that someone else repeatedly posted here?
>> If you are then the problem I have with that as evidence of the
>> creator's mental state is that no one has shown any connection between it and
>> this group's newgroupping.
>I don't know what you mean by "this group's newgroupping" I'm not being
>smart-ass, do you mean unmoderated??
No, I think what is meant is the establishment of the news group. Any
number of a.a FAQ's have been thrown around over the last 4 years. How
do we know which FAQ is the original one established when the news
group was established? Over the years it must have been edited and
added to. What are the current authorized versions? Who authorized
them? Determining all of this is likely to take more time and effort
(and be extremely boring) than just using common sense and not dis-
puting that which you cannot control anyway. All newsgroups exist
for a free exchange of ideas between people. If you don't like an
idea - don't participate in threads addressing it - even to dispute
the legitimacy of the subject matter. The only power you have is the
power to control your own participation. Any part you take in a
thread you dislike will only tend to perpetuate the thread and be
counterproductive to your objective. This should be clear if you
look at the threads on a.a over tha last few months. Many of these
idiotic discussions would have died except for the battles over
whether they are proper or just how idiotic they are.
>In spite of what I've
>been posting recently, I really do not wish to argue the validity of
>astrology, because I can not. I know it's valid, I see it every day, but
>I'd never suggest that I can prove it to anyone.
What you describe is essentially the religious side of
astrology. It is not so much that it cannot be shown to be
valid as it cannot be shown to be invalid (i.e. it is
unfalsifiable). This side merely follows the dogma that
has been laid down over the centuries since Ptolmey. They
take every corellation that fits (or seems to fit) and
by taking care not to examine things to closely, build a
belief system. They "know" their belief is valid in exactly
the same way a racist "knows" his race is superior. They
accept all evidence which supports their viewpoint and
reject all contrary evidence without carefully examining either
one.
> Do you really think an
>astrologer would start a newsgroup to argue validity?
Do you think there are no astrologers who care about the
validity of astrology?
>This is time
>consuming, why would somebody want to waste time arguing the validity of
>their profession,
Please do not try and force your agenda on other astrologers. There
are a great many who are true professionals (unlike so many on a.a).
The Astrological Association of Great Britain has an entire journal
devoted to astrological research, it is called Correlation (available
from Correlation Distribution, 396 Caledonian Road, London N1 1DN,
England, Tel. 081-469-2828). You should try reading it sometime - you
will find there are a great many astrologers whose approach is not
so ostrich like as your own.
>particularly when we all know we can't prove it to the
>satisfaction of those aligning with "science" (here).
So is your problem that you "would never suggest that you
can prove it to anyone" - as you say above - or just that you
cannot prove it to the skeptics on a.a?
lff
"Superstition, bigotry and prejudice, ghosts though they are, cling
tenaciously to life; they are shades armed with tooth and claw. They
must be grappled with unceasingly, for it is a fateful part of human
destiny that it is condemned to wage perpetual war against ghosts. A
shade is not easily taken by the throat and destroyed." Victor Hugo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Edmond Wollmann
LazzDildo wrote:
> Lazz on the sidelines. Eyebrows raised. In the box seats. (and he's not afraid
> to throw his popcorn onto the court if things get boring).
Little does he realize the floor is awash with popcorn from his own
performance.
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:03:28 -0800, astrologer <astro...@cosmos.com>
> wrote:
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >SNIP! Quite off topic. Please post just ONE post on astrology-if your
> >tiny cranium can handle it.
> Ed,
mine other than it comes from SDSU?
> It appeared to me that seven of Sherilyn's most recent posts were
> specifically about astrology. These seem to be the ones you are
> complaining about. Yet at least eight of your responses, including
> the one quoted here, have nothing whatsoever to say about the subject
> of astrology.
I thought you were scientific and required "proof" for your accusations?
Yet you and your cronies have no proof whatever and yet accuse me of
these posts.
A complaint will be sent to your server if this is not retracted and if
you do not cease making unfounded and unprovable assertions such as
this.
This only proves the speciousness with which the lot of you
aregue-insisting we demonstrate proofs for our beliefs while you
demonstrate hyposcrisy.