Jo Benet Ramsey
Mony Singh
Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
Brian Johnson
It was Boulder luv, my second hometown.
--
Brian Johnson
Edmond Wollmann
> Brian Johnson
And Jon, not Jo Benet.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
maberry
This is pretty interesting chart. New students might want to download
it as a classic example of a "grand cross."
Regarding the remarks below about the difficult energy in this chart (or
in anyone else's chart), I think it's important to remember that each
individual soul decides what to make of the chart. Some very
"challenging" charts can produce very advanced people who overcome the
negatives. We'll never know who JB would have become.
The most fascinating thing in the chart for me just at this moment is
the grand cross and how it relates to parental energies in astrology.
Sun and moon can symbolize parents -- here these two oppose -- and in
the two houses that symbolize parents -- 4 and 10, with Cancer/Capricorn
(mother/father) on the cusps. And this mother/father axis is squared by
the Pluto opp Mars in 1/7.
Also, for anyone who follows the moon's nodes, they are: N node 7 Aq/
S node 7 Leo, conjunct the Sun/Moon axis. JB died at age 6-1/2, when
the nodes (using 1 year to 1 day) had progressed to a point between the
sun/moon opp. Maybe a midpoint?
Also, Jupiter and Venus surround the Midheaven ("spot on the stage"),
all in Cancer controlled by the Moon (mother). But the Venus is
directly opposed by the Saturn at home in Capricorn (father energy
again), close to conjunct the IC. Her Sun at home in Leo in 10 echoes
the father energy for me. I view the 4th and 10th houses as
father/mother but which parent goes in which house depends on the
person's view of and reaction to each parent.
The Pluto/Mars opposition squaring this father/mother axis ties in by
house 1/7 with the struggle between the "self" and the "not-self." This
is only emphasized by the rising sign/desc axis of Libra/Aries. Mars is
the establishment of "Self." Pluto is the huge world outside the self
which is paradoxically incorporated in the self but in a subconscious
way. Mars is just above the horizon, Pluto just below.
Also, I see that the mother (moon/Aq)is ruled by Uranus in Cap, conjunct
Nept (at the very least, confusion) and the father energy (Saturn/Cap)
is also conjunct Nept from the other side.
Looks to me like these energies (self/notself and mother/father) are
pretty intimately entangled, but only the family would know how it was
all working out. Does anyone have the charts on the parents??
Just a quick observation.....interested to see what others think.
Roger, it seems you see some pretty negative possibilities in this
chart. Could you explain to me what it is that you find in here???
Thanks---
******
peace
maberry
*******
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
> MYSTARS wrote:
> >
> > JonBenet Ramsey was born on Aaugust 6, 1990 in Atlanta, Georgia at 11:56 AM
> > EDT.
> >
> > Beverlee
>
> Thanks for this, Beverlee, I hadn't seen it before.
>
> Ed, do you care to comment on this chart?
>
> I have a recurrent paradox here...Inasmuch as the victim has what we might
> politely term a challenge natal pattern..or a pattern of challenges..And that this is
> common when we find persons in extreme life circumstances, then how much does the
> *vibration* (yuck, I hate that use of the word) seem a component of a the knee jerk
> tendency to blame victims. It is clear that the victim here is young enough to benefit
> from our presumption of total innocence, but had she been in her 20's, what might our
> reaction to this *personality* be. Might we be tempted to blame the victim if all we
> felt intuitively was these projected stresses emanating from an adult in crisis.
> I only mention this as an attempt to begin to explain the phenomenon of blaming
> the victim..it just crossed my mind that we are not quick to align our sensativeties to
> charts like this...Does something in the collective unconscious of our society refuse
> to *get involved* in this case *because* of the seeds of a very dark adversity we
> intuit concerning the *difficult presence* of this person--a black hole in the sole of
> mankind, or something like that...sorry to be at a loss for words here.
>
> Rog
>
> +-------<11>26Leo38----<10>24Can16-----<9>21Gem44-----------+
> | Mer 10Vir45 | Jup 27Can29 | | |
> | | Sun 13Leo56 | | |
> | | | | |
> | | | Ven 21Can10 | |
> <12>26Vir28----|-----------------------------|-----20Tau49<8>
> | | Astrolog 5.20 chart | |
> | | JonBinet Ramsey | |
> | | Mon Aug 6 1990 11:53am | |
> | | Atlanta, GA | Mar 16Tau09 |
> <1>22Lib22-----| DT -05:00, 77:00W 32:00N |-----22Ari22<7>
> | Plu 15Sco00 | UT: 15:53, Sid.T: 7:44 | |
> | | Placidus Houses | |
> | | Tropical / Geocentric | |
> | | Julian Day = 2448110.1618 | |
> <2>20Sco49-----|-----------------------------|-----26Pis28<6>
> | | Ura 6Cap12r | | |
> | | Nep 12Cap23r | | |
> | | Sat 20Cap24r | | |
> | | | Moo 14Aqu42 | |
> +-----------21Sag44<3>-----24Cap16<4>-----26Aqu38<5>--------+
>
> Rog
>
> --
> peda...@geocities.com
> 11:53PM EDT 26Jul50 76W48 42N06
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Roger L. Satterlee
Lou Minatti
Mony Singh wrote:
>
> Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
> Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
Any good psychic should be able to tell you.
--
Come to... the glamorous world of Michael Pollack.
http://www.concentric.net/~slaroche/POLLACK.HTM
"Nah nah nah, gonna have a good time!"
MYSTARS
MYSTARS
I think you may be picking up what I have seen in JonBenet's Vedic astrology
reading which indicates that she had some very negative Karma. A few excerpts
from her Vedic reading (Goravani Jyotish) follow:
"You will need to stand your ground and remain courageous in your dealings with
your relations. You may experience some physical distress. You will have
strained relations with your relatives. Be mindful of causing others distress,
as it may ultimately bring you suffering. Your mother may be of questionable
character. Your inherent quality of peaceful appearance and the knack of
dealings will penetrate to the minds of the public. Your smile is enough to
attract and be remembered by others. Occupations like beauty centers etc.
Having Saturn in the 4th house is not good for you. This makes you disturbed
in a way. It brings humiliation. You may be dishonored in your profession or
suffering physical hardships. This Saturn encourages you to ignore good
advice, and thus you are abandoned or humiliated at the hands of even your
near and dear ones. Even your mother may abandon you. This is a leftover from
past lives bad karma. You are able to overcome competitors but are inwardly
very lonely and may feel a sense of alienation. You feel that no one
understands or shares your inner feelings and ambitions."
Pretty eerie, huh? However, I must add that JonBenet had many positive
indications in her Vedic reading as well. So my feeling is that her untimely
death was somehow an accident, not intentional.
Beverlee
MYSTARS
Patsy Ramsey was born on December 29, 1956
Parkersburg, West Virginia
No time given
John Ramsey was born on December 7, 1943
Okemos, Michigan
No time given
Burke Ramsey (JonBenet's brother) was born on
January 27, 1987
Atlanta,GA
Beverlee
No time given
maberry
Beverlee,
Thanks for this info! The thing that jumps out at me right away is that
the mother's Cap. Sun is right on JB's Uranus (conj Nept) which rules
the mother (moon in Aq). Also, a quick look reveals the brother's moon
(mother) in Cap, possibly conjunct Neptune. ??? similar experiences of
the mother?? Wish we had the birthtimes, but there is a lot to look at
in comparing these charts anyway.
peace
maberry
Robert J. Pease
this something that you have an obligation to report to
the Boulder D.A. without delay!!!
MYSTARS
Hi, Roger,
Oh, yes, I'm "hooked" on the JonBenet case, all right! And just after
recovering from the O.J. insanity, too. Tsk, tsk!
Here's another hair raiser: the chart for the 911 call which Patsy Ramsey made
on December 26, 1996 at 5:52 AM MST in Boulder, Colorado, puts John Ramsey's
Sun 14 Sagittarius *precisely* upon the Ascendant and the North Node precisely
on the MC. Pluto in the 12th house of this event chart , and Saturn in the
3rd make me wonder if the case will ever be solved. The Moon at 23 Cancer in
the 8th house of death opposing Jupiter, Mercury, and Neptune in the 2nd are a
sad commentary, too. Note that Neptune in this chart exactly conjoins Patsy
Ramsey's Mercury.
BTW I got all this data from one of the magazines in Astronet on AOL
Beverlee
Sherilyn
In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
<mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
>Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
>Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
>
--
Sherilyn
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
Roger L. Satterlee
Beverlee,
If you keep posting this data your going to get me hooked on the
hunt. Seriously, though, if I had all the data for the persons falling
into the suspect catagory, I could probably not resist studying them with
an eye for which persons chart is *most like* the specific crime--as
though, and please excuse my apparent coroner's callouseness here, as
though the act it self was a projection of the criminal--his/her bizarre
and anti-social art. But having been caught up in such a diversion before
I'm not overly fond of the task and have, until now, successfully avoided
it.
Rog
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
Gee, I'll be here all night just answering your spam posts with one
liners like Ricky.
> In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
> <mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
> >Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
> >Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
> Sicko.
Oh I see, you chew Ann out for making a comment about "silly cross
dressers" or some such thing, but you can call people who just want
*data* sickos?
Explain? Oh I forgot you are a hypocrite par excellance. Are you ready
to argue so I can blow your silly little vendetta thoughts out of the
water? Or are you still on the "killfile" fake run?
How about an astrology post? One or two maybe? Or you just send
"messages" for groups? :-))))) Get real.
Fake FAQ crap snipped. If you think I am forgetting the fact that you
casually wiped out my pages, with my art as well, you are thinkin like a
fool. Well hows this folks? Better yet?
--
"If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by, you're thinkin like
a fool cause it's a case of do or die." Judas Preist "You Got Another
Thing Coming"
Ann Shermann
>In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
><mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
>>Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
>>Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
>>
>Sicko.
Is that how you respond to all autopsies? To researchers who look at
cancer? To researchers who look at AIDS? How about historians?
Ministers and counselors who listen to the stories of the bereaved and
ask questions in order to better understand and thereby help? How
about district attorneys, police, and all law enforcement -- all
sickos? Anybody who has ever asked, "how did it happen"? All
"sickos"?
Ann
Sherilyn
In article <34351047...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
<a...@mexia.com> writes
>On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:56:41 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
>><mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
>>>Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
>>>Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
>>>
>>Sicko.
>
>Is that how you respond to all autopsies?
It's how I respond to rubbernecks and ghouls. In the short time I have
been a subscriber to alt.astrology, I have witnessed sickoes trading
personal details about a dead Princess, posting a telephone number for
personal inquiries about her birth date even before her body was buried,
and now, a couple of weeks later, I see you all standing over the corpse
of another dead young girl, prying into her personal details in search
of some sick kind of personal validation of the dead ideas of a
superstitious past.
Sherilyn
Brazening it out, Ann?
Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
In article <343664c3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
<a...@mexia.com> writes
>On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:38:06 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <34351047...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
>><a...@mexia.com> writes
>>>On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:56:41 +0100, Sherilyn
>>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
>>>><mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
>>>>>Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
>>>>>Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
>>>>>
>>>>Sicko.
>>>
>>>Is that how you respond to all autopsies?
>>[disingenuous medical comparison snipped]
>
>More mischaracterizations, Sherilyn? Obviously you don't have answers
>for my points, so let's look at those points again:
>
>>Is that how you respond to all autopsies? To researchers who look
>>at cancer? To researchers who look at AIDS? How about historians?
>>Ministers and counselors who listen to the stories of the bereaved
>>and ask questions in order to better understand and thereby help?
>>How about district attorneys, police, and all law enforcement -- all
>>sickos? Anybody who has ever asked, "how did it happen"?
>> All "sickos"?
>
>Why evade with mischaracterizations and snipping?
You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
>(That is rhetorical
>since we all know why.) There is nothing "disingenuous" about my
>comparisons or my questions. There is a great deal disingenuous about
>your response.
Which you have yet to demonstrate.
>
>>
>>It's how I respond to rubbernecks and ghouls. In the short time I have
>>been a subscriber to alt.astrology, I have witnessed sickoes trading
>>personal details about a dead Princess, posting a telephone number for
>>personal inquiries about her birth date even before her body was buried,
>>and now, a couple of weeks later, I see you all standing over the corpse
>>of another dead young girl, prying into her personal details in search
>>of some sick kind of personal validation of the dead ideas of a
>>superstitious past.
>
>You have seen hundreds of posts which started out with "Help please"
>responded to, but they don't get a mention in your
>mischaracterizations.
I have also responded to the pleas for help by pointing out the
inability of astrology to (1) make assessments better than chance and
(2) help with counseling in medical and other cases. Perhaps you missed
them.
>
>How does one learn if not by case studies and examining data? You
>pride yourself on compiling lists of articles, presumably "academic"
>articles on a subject about which you know nothing. How do you think
>those "academics" which you admire learn? To characterize as
>"ghoulish" and "sicko" that which you think has no meaning, i.e. the
>birth data of an individual and the knowledge relating thereto, while
No, there are more of your mischaracterizations here. I described the
openly expressed interest in the birth details of a murdered young woman
as "ghoulish" and "sicko". This emphatically does have meaning.
>amassing large loads of articles compiled by writers who presumably
>looked at the same type of data and NOT deeming those academics
>"ghoulish" or "sicko" is pure prejudice.
To fasten on one garish and sensationalist case after another is the
antithesis of fact gathering. Murder statistics are routinely collected
by the police and can be examined in a non-intrusive, impersonal, and
statistically valid manner.
>
>This post is so typical of what I have come to expect from you,
>Sherilyn. You snipped all to which you obviously cannot respond,
See above.
>mischaracterized that which was snipped,
See above.
>then changed the header to
>make it difficult for another to go back and get the full message,
Rubbish. You yourself habitually change the header. If this causes
problems for tracking threads in your newsreader, get a new one. A
correctly configured newsreader tracks on "References:" headers--you may
also notice I always make a point of saying "(was <old title>)" in
follow-ups where I change the header.
And this, I might add, is the kind of post I have come to expect from
you: a personal attack under the guise of pointing out some alleged
deception on my part.
>and
>finally only look at two or three instances out of hundreds since you
>have been on this NG and deem those few "ghoulish" when done by
>astrologers but not "ghoulish" when done by your approved academics.
Please visit dejanews and see if you can find examples of "approved
academics" behaving in this ghoulish fashion.
>That is called deceptive, with a large dollop of bad faith, Sherilyn,
>and indicates pure prejudice, hypocrisy and deceit.
See above.
>
>Since you find our company so despicable you can always LEAVE. After
>all you have accomplished what you set out to do, or at least what you
>stated you came to do. Why stay is such "ghoulish" "sicko" company if
>your heightened sensitivities are so outraged?
I was _drawn_ here by Edmond Wollmann's campaign to drive people away.
I am here now. Deal with it.
>
>BTW, you might as well get over the misconception that astrology is
>the "dead ideas of a superstitious past" for holding to that
>misconception will only provide more and more frustration for you as
>astrology continues to demonstrate its relevance in the lives of more
>and more people. It appears that you are trying to hold back the sea
>with a dam made of sand and this post to which I am responding
>demonstrates how porous the dam is.
>
>Ann
>
>
Nobody I know takes astrology seriously. Sorry about that.
Fox Mulder
In article <du+IaMAZ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
Subjective character analysis aside, why not?
Ann Shermann
>In article <34351047...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
><a...@mexia.com> writes
>>On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:56:41 +0100, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3431B5...@vedicwisdom.com>, Mony Singh
>>><mo...@vedicwisdom.com> writes
>>>>Does any body know the Date, Time and Place of birth for this Model
>>>>Girl who was found murdered in Denver Colorado
>>>>
>>>Sicko.
>>
>>Is that how you respond to all autopsies?
>[disingenuous medical comparison snipped]
More mischaracterizations, Sherilyn? Obviously you don't have answers
for my points, so let's look at those points again:
>Is that how you respond to all autopsies? To researchers who look
>at cancer? To researchers who look at AIDS? How about historians?
>Ministers and counselors who listen to the stories of the bereaved
>and ask questions in order to better understand and thereby help?
>How about district attorneys, police, and all law enforcement -- all
>sickos? Anybody who has ever asked, "how did it happen"?
> All "sickos"?
Why evade with mischaracterizations and snipping? (That is rhetorical
since we all know why.) There is nothing "disingenuous" about my
comparisons or my questions. There is a great deal disingenuous about
your response.
>
>It's how I respond to rubbernecks and ghouls. In the short time I have
>been a subscriber to alt.astrology, I have witnessed sickoes trading
>personal details about a dead Princess, posting a telephone number for
>personal inquiries about her birth date even before her body was buried,
>and now, a couple of weeks later, I see you all standing over the corpse
>of another dead young girl, prying into her personal details in search
>of some sick kind of personal validation of the dead ideas of a
>superstitious past.
You have seen hundreds of posts which started out with "Help please"
responded to, but they don't get a mention in your
mischaracterizations.
How does one learn if not by case studies and examining data? You
pride yourself on compiling lists of articles, presumably "academic"
articles on a subject about which you know nothing. How do you think
those "academics" which you admire learn? To characterize as
"ghoulish" and "sicko" that which you think has no meaning, i.e. the
birth data of an individual and the knowledge relating thereto, while
amassing large loads of articles compiled by writers who presumably
looked at the same type of data and NOT deeming those academics
"ghoulish" or "sicko" is pure prejudice.
This post is so typical of what I have come to expect from you,
Sherilyn. You snipped all to which you obviously cannot respond,
mischaracterized that which was snipped, then changed the header to
make it difficult for another to go back and get the full message, and
finally only look at two or three instances out of hundreds since you
have been on this NG and deem those few "ghoulish" when done by
astrologers but not "ghoulish" when done by your approved academics.
That is called deceptive, with a large dollop of bad faith, Sherilyn,
and indicates pure prejudice, hypocrisy and deceit.
Since you find our company so despicable you can always LEAVE. After
all you have accomplished what you set out to do, or at least what you
stated you came to do. Why stay is such "ghoulish" "sicko" company if
your heightened sensitivities are so outraged?
BTW, you might as well get over the misconception that astrology is
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> Brazening it out, Ann?
What has that got to do witrh logical argument? Do you always begin your
arguments with threats?
> Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
sci.skeptic snipped.
> >>>>Sicko.
Please identify them for we who have brains.
> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
Oh POT <KETTLE< BLACK!
Wasn't it you oh disingenuos one who complains of ad hominem attacks?
And when I nail your incompetent little ass you run and act like you
killfiled me. Chicken shit-like I said. You wouldn't know a real
argument if it bit you on your ass.
> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
Oh so we can't ask for data BECAUSE of what we do? Oh well strong
argument there!:-))))))) Got anymore funny ones?
> >(That is rhetorical
> >since we all know why.) There is nothing "disingenuous" about my
> >comparisons or my questions. There is a great deal disingenuous about
> >your response.
Not only that but "it" wasted time canceling my account at AOL just like
I lead it to do-then it says it killfiles people to find more productive
things to do! Yeah right! Sherilyn what will you do about the hundreds
of machines in my labs? I don't have to log in, show ID, have an
account or anything! How will you censor me now? :-)))))))) You will
have to have about 3500 different killfiles to not see me.
Not possible-and then it calls my accounts "sock puppets" while it
writes from one!!!! What is your boy name?
Yes you are correct Ann this one is not only disingenuos-but a lying,
foul mouthed, specious, illogical, speculating spamming pile of crap
that couldn't argue its way out of a paper bag! It runs like a chicken
everytime I corner it.
> Which you have yet to demonstrate.
Not only has she demonstrated it, but I have as well-you have
demonstrated nothing.
snipped entire Sherilyn rant and fake FAQ shit.
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ea063f14...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes...
>>
>> You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
>> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
>> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
>> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
>> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
>>
>
Modus operandi and discretion. Elsewhere in the post, I challenged Ann
to demonstrate that bona fide researchers acted in this intrusive way.
About the only people I know who do act in this way are newspaper
reporters. Doctors, police, coroners and so on do no more than is
required of them.
Fox Mulder
In article <XeQK2fCj...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.ea063f14...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
> Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
> >In article <du+IaMAZ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
> >Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
> ...
> >>
> >> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
> >> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
> >> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
> >> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
> >>
> >
>
> Modus operandi and discretion. Elsewhere in the post, I challenged Ann
> to demonstrate that bona fide researchers acted in this intrusive way.
> About the only people I know who do act in this way are newspaper
> reporters. Doctors, police, coroners and so on do no more than is
> required of them.
Doctors and coroners reached the socially acceptable position they are in
today by operating without discretion decades ago (remember, stolen
bodies to be used for disection in order to "learn") so they've gained
social and political acceptance today, this is a fact, but they
got there in the first place by acting without discretion. They had to
at the time...they were "on to something" and had to validate their
position with the information gathered by "research". I'm sure that
their position at the time was considered to be based on subjective
evidence.
The police frequently violate the civil rights of innocents in the course
of their work, which violations lead to false imprisonment, loss of job,
social ostracism; the violations of the police have "real time"
consequences in the "real world".
For an astrologer to post a request for birth/death data in order to cast
a chart and examine the astrological factors "in play" at the time is an
attempt to study and understand. There is no intrusion upon the family,
(they were asking for data that would have had to be public-the person
requesting it just didn't have it at the time) there are no negative
social consequences for those involved in the situation being analyzed
(law enforcement usually doesn't publicly acknowledge contact with
astrologers/psychics etc. except in very unusual cases). The situation
has already occurred, nobody can change that. If an astrologer (or
student) feels they can learn from the data requested, and the data is
public knowledge, I can't see that the asking of a question on a
newsgroup for astrologers can be construed as being beyond the bounds of
decency...I think it is in the interest of pushing back those
"omnipresent frontiers of knowledge".
If I felt I was qualified at this time (I don't even know what to look
for yet, at this time, in a "death related" situation) I would have
studied the data myself and not felt in the least bit "ghoulish".
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <MPG.ea063f14...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
> Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
> >In article <du+IaMAZ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
> >Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
...
> >> You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
> >> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
> >> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
> >> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
> >> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
Oh I see, what about the Tuskeegee experiments that the president just
apologized for wherein blacks were allowed to get and maintain syphlis
simply to observe the development of the disease even though there was a
cure FOR 40 YEARS!!!!
Answer MS. Sherilyn disingenuous, lying, fake faq creating, arrogant,
spin doctress of the multiverse!
> >Subjective character analysis aside, why not?
There isn't any.
SNIP!
--
"His (her/its) arguments are as thin as the soup made from the shadow of
a pigeon that starved to death." Abraham Lincoln on Douglas' debating
ability.
Ann Shermann
>Brazening it out, Ann?
No, I am debating. And you?
>
>Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
Works for me. I snipped it originally so as not to embarrass you in
front of your pals, but I'm happy to let them see the whole picture
despite their predilictions.
Please quit playing stupid. READ my full paragraph again. Your
mischaracterizations and evasions are self-evident. Out of 8
questions, you snipped 7, totally mischaracterized all with the word
"disingenuous" and apparently just forgot the 5 of 8 which do not
relate to anything "medical." Therefore, your "disingenuous medical
comparison snipped" is appropriately labeled evasion and
mischaracterization. I have mischaracterized nothing. Further, I
omitted nothing. (Omission of your opponents argument in debate is
tantamount to the flag of surrender; you need to remember that.)
>Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
>and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
>counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
>attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
>
Why? Astrologers serve as many folks as all of the above do, so why
is their inquiry legitimate and our inquiry "ghoulish" and "sicko"?
Can you say "double standard"? Are you fixated on the
"astrologically-fixated"?
>
>>(That is rhetorical
>>since we all know why.) There is nothing "disingenuous" about my
>>comparisons or my questions. There is a great deal disingenuous about
>>your response.
>
>Which you have yet to demonstrate.
Of course I demonstrated it. Reposting the entire paragraph proved
your evasion and "disingenuous" intent to anyone who can read. IF you
did not have disingenuous intent, why did you snip 7 out of 8
questions and mislabel all of the questions? Self-evident yet again.
>>>
>>>It's how I respond to rubbernecks and ghouls. In the short time I have
>>>been a subscriber to alt.astrology, I have witnessed sickoes trading
>>>personal details about a dead Princess, posting a telephone number for
>>>personal inquiries about her birth date even before her body was buried,
>>>and now, a couple of weeks later, I see you all standing over the corpse
>>>of another dead young girl, prying into her personal details in search
>>>of some sick kind of personal validation of the dead ideas of a
>>>superstitious past.
>>
>>You have seen hundreds of posts which started out with "Help please"
>>responded to, but they don't get a mention in your
>>mischaracterizations.
>
>I have also responded to the pleas for help by pointing out the
>inability of astrology to (1) make assessments better than chance and
>(2) help with counseling in medical and other cases. Perhaps you missed
>them.
Puleeease. You, yourself, simply do not KNOW either (1) or (2) above,
yet you have not hesitated giving an opinion despite your dearth of
knowledge. All you have done is regurgitate the findings of
"authorities" who know about as much astrology as you do, i.e, little
or none. No, I didn't miss your posts. I saw you pretend to be an
astrologer, just like I have seen you pretend good faith and
demonstrate the opposite as in this series of posts. I have seen you
demonstrate your lack of knowledge in this area which has yet to
restrain you from giving an opinion in this area. That is called in
"prejudice" where I come from, and that is being charitable.
>>
>>How does one learn if not by case studies and examining data? You
>>pride yourself on compiling lists of articles, presumably "academic"
>>articles on a subject about which you know nothing. How do you think
>>those "academics" which you admire learn? To characterize as
>>"ghoulish" and "sicko" that which you think has no meaning, i.e. the
>>birth data of an individual and the knowledge relating thereto, while
>
>No, there are more of your mischaracterizations here.
I asked you two questions. You answered niether. More issue
avoidance obviously.
> I described the
>openly expressed interest in the birth details of a murdered young woman
>as "ghoulish" and "sicko". This emphatically does have meaning.
Why? According to you birth data has no meaning whatsoever so how can
it be "ghoulish" when you do not find birth data meaningful in the
first place?
>
>>amassing large loads of articles compiled by writers who presumably
>>looked at the same type of data and NOT deeming those academics
>>"ghoulish" or "sicko" is pure prejudice.
>
>To fasten on one garish and sensationalist case after another is the
>antithesis of fact gathering.
Two cases in how many many months? That's 'one garish and
sensationalist case after another"? The case of the little girl's
unsolved murder has been going on for almost a year -- unsolved. It
has been covered by newspapers, magazines, television and yet, when
you see a series of about 5 posts on alt.astrology THAT is "the
antithesis of fact gathering." What is birth data if NOT a fact? The
death of Diana? The whole world asked questions but only astrologers
are "ghoulish"? Your prejudice is showing and we all know what
prejudice means, don't we? Judgement without knowledge.
>Murder statistics are routinely collected
>by the police and can be examined in a non-intrusive, impersonal, and
>statistically valid manner.
>
Tell that to the guys in homicide, specifically the guys in homicide
who are trying to solve the case of the murder of the little girl.
Same is same, Sherilyn, regardless of your protestations. And here
we come back to your mutually exclusive propositions: a) birth data
can provide no meaningful information, yet, b) giving birth data is
intrusive and personal. If a) is valid then b) is not. If b) is
valid then a) is not. You can't have it BOTH ways. All you
"rational" cynics are pretty illogical in this regard.
>>
>>This post is so typical of what I have come to expect from you,
>>Sherilyn. You snipped all to which you obviously cannot respond,
>
>See above.
Yea verily, see above. You still did not say exactly why you
mischaracterized or snipped in the FIRST place or how you arrived at
the conclusion that what is "sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the
gander." Please do explain this dichotomy of thought.
>>mischaracterized that which was snipped,
>
>See above.
Indeed, please explain your differentitation of data being legitimate
for one discipline while "ghoulish" for another.
>
>>then changed the header to
>>make it difficult for another to go back and get the full message,
>
>Rubbish. You yourself habitually change the header.
Flatulent lie. The post to which you responded is the FIRST TIME I
have ever changed the header in over a year on this NG. I did it to
hi-light YOUR technique -- which you demonstrated by changing the
header yet again just in this response -- thank you very much for
proving my point. I didn't change the header this time because ...
I just love it when you and you pals in sci-skeptic put my name in
lights. I usually get several additional clients directly
attributable to your negativity. Folks are always drawn to the Light,
you know. Keep up the good work and you personally may be able to
take credit for the increasing interest in astrology and its positive
value for man/womankind as a result of your increasing negativity.
> If this causes
>problems for tracking threads in your newsreader, get a new one. A
>correctly configured newsreader tracks on "References:" headers--you may
>also notice I always make a point of saying "(was <old title>)" in
>follow-ups where I change the header.
Why are you afraid to just post in the thread and let your answer
stand on its merits? You always have to put your "spin" on the header
(evidence: see above) Have you looked at this control issue
indicated by your demonstrated inability to let a thread progress
smoothly without your name being the originator and the header changed
to reflect your point of view? Afraid of getting lost in the crowd?
Think your opinion must be first or it won't get the attention it
deserves even when you have no knowledge of the subject being
discussed? It's not cute, it is not smart, it is transparent,
Sherilyn. We are all astrologers, not brick layers, and your
obfuscatory techniques are clumsey at best.
>
>And this, I might add, is the kind of post I have come to expect from
>you: a personal attack under the guise of pointing out some alleged
>deception on my part.
Not "alleged deception" Sherilyn. Obvious deception. You snipped,
mischaracterized, didn't respond to the post, put in a boatload of ad
hominem for all astrologers and then.... plead innocent, not to
mention per-se-cu-ted. If you don't want to be accused of deception,
the fix is real simple -- don't deceive by snipping and
mischaracterizing what you snipped. Answer straight-on and, I have to
give you credit, you are improving... just with this post. It is a
miracle! <tongue-firmly-in-cheek)
>
>>and
>>finally only look at two or three instances out of hundreds since you
>>have been on this NG and deem those few "ghoulish" when done by
>>astrologers but not "ghoulish" when done by your approved academics.
>
>Please visit dejanews and see if you can find examples of "approved
>academics" behaving in this ghoulish fashion.
What is "ghoulish" about asking for birth data?
>
>>That is called deceptive, with a large dollop of bad faith, Sherilyn,
>>and indicates pure prejudice, hypocrisy and deceit.
>
>See above.
Sadly nothing you say above disclaims the deception, the bad faith or
the prejudice. All just seems to confirm. What a waste of intellect.
>>
>>Since you find our company so despicable you can always LEAVE. After
>>all you have accomplished what you set out to do, or at least what you
>>stated you came to do. Why stay is such "ghoulish" "sicko" company if
>>your heightened sensitivities are so outraged?
>
>I was _drawn_ here by Edmond Wollmann's campaign to drive people away.
>I am here now. Deal with it.
>
Hey, I have no problem dealing with it, Sherilyn. NOW what is your
reason for being in a group of people you disdain and call "sickos"?,
>>
>>BTW, you might as well get over the misconception that astrology is
>>the "dead ideas of a superstitious past" for holding to that
>>misconception will only provide more and more frustration for you as
>>astrology continues to demonstrate its relevance in the lives of more
>>and more people. It appears that you are trying to hold back the sea
>>with a dam made of sand and this post to which I am responding
>>demonstrates how porous the dam is.
>>
>>Ann
>>
>>
>Nobody I know takes astrology seriously. Sorry about that.
No need to apologize to me for you or your friends' ignorance and
prejudice. You can apologize to all those who have read your
one-liners, seen your misrepresentations that you are an astrologer,
seen your "sig" file and erroneously assumed, as it is your obvious
intention to deceive, that you actually know something about astrology
and therefore can make an informed statement. _Knowledge_ is the
determinate prior to making any judgement for rational individuals.
Ann
Sherilyn
In article <3437bcd4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
<a...@mexia.com> writes
>On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 19:29:45 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Brazening it out, Ann?
>
>No, I am debating. And you?
>
>>
>>Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
>
>Works for me. I snipped it originally so as not to embarrass you in
>front of your pals, but I'm happy to let them see the whole picture
>despite their predilictions.
I'm not the one who is defending a bunch of corpse-strippers.
[much snippage for space: In essence, I called an astrologer who asked
for the birth date and time of a murdered young girl as sicko, and I had
replied to Ann's response by snipping them and inserting]
...
>>>>[disingenuous medical comparison snipped]
>>>
[Ann replied]
>>>More mischaracterizations, Sherilyn? Obviously you don't have answers
>>>for my points, so let's look at those points again:
>>>
>>>>Is that how you respond to all autopsies? To researchers who look
>>>>at cancer? To researchers who look at AIDS? How about historians?
>>>>Ministers and counselors who listen to the stories of the bereaved
>>>>and ask questions in order to better understand and thereby help?
>>>>How about district attorneys, police, and all law enforcement -- all
>>>>sickos? Anybody who has ever asked, "how did it happen"?
>>>> All "sickos"?
>>>
>>>Why evade with mischaracterizations and snipping?
>>
>>You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
>
>Please quit playing stupid. READ my full paragraph again. Your
>mischaracterizations and evasions are self-evident. Out of 8
>questions, you snipped 7, totally mischaracterized all with the word
>"disingenuous" and apparently just forgot the 5 of 8 which do not
>relate to anything "medical." Therefore, your "disingenuous medical
>comparison snipped" is appropriately labeled evasion and
>mischaracterization. I have mischaracterized nothing. Further, I
>omitted nothing.
Ah, so that is the burden of your complaint: that I failed to categorize
your hypocritical comparisons of your cronies' USENET requests with the
work of bona fide researchers, doctors, counselors and LEO's as
"medical, historical, pastoral and law enforcement comparisons"? And
that I added my opinion that such comparisons were, and I think I was
being *very* charitable in using this word, _disingenuous_?
If that is the best you can do, I don't think you'll ever succeed in
"embarrassing" anyone except yourself.
>(Omission of your opponents argument in debate is
>tantamount to the flag of surrender; you need to remember that.)
You opinion doesn't bother me, Ann. Now that you have revealed your
level of "debate" (your word) I feel that I can snip or ignore your
ranting with impunity. Nothing you can say can trouble me or demand a
reply.
[ranting snipped]
In a fit of charity, I cleared out my killfile when I finally had
Edmond's spam under control. I now revoke that act in your case.
I should have known you were a sick one when, in response to a casual
mention by me of a kids' TV show, you came out with that story about how
you made those kids put their hands over their dicks before the ball
game. As a parent, I don't have to debate with sickoes like you. I
only hope other parents in your area know about your repulsive
obsessions.
*plonk*
Tr...@beauty.com
On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 12:30:50 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> Brazening it out, Ann?
>
>What has that got to do witrh logical argument? Do you always begin your
>arguments with threats?
Where was the threat in Sherilyn's statement, Eddie?
>
>> Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
>
>sci.skeptic snipped.
You have yet to post on-topic in this thread, Eddie. Snip yourself.
>
>Please identify them for we who have brains.
That doesn't count, Eddie. It has to be in your cranium, not
behind your Levis.
>
>> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
>
>Oh POT <KETTLE< BLACK!
>
>Wasn't it you oh disingenuos one who complains of ad hominem attacks?
>And when I nail your incompetent little ass you run and act like you
>killfiled me.
'Nail your ...'? Please take this to alt.sex.stories, Eddie.
> Chicken shit-like I said. You wouldn't know a real
>argument if it bit you on your ass.
Sorry Eddie - we don't go in for rough sex here. There are
plenty of newsgroups where you can post that sort of thing
to your ... heart's content.
>
>> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
>> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
>> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
>
>Oh so we can't ask for data BECAUSE of what we do?
Disingenuous. Nobody said that you couldn't ask for data.
Nobody told you that you couldn't ask to wear quartz crystals
in your nose either. You would just look stupid doing so.
>Oh well strong
>argument there!:-))))))) Got anymore funny ones?
Just look under 'woll...@aznet.net' some time in DejaNews.
>
>> >(That is rhetorical
>> >since we all know why.) There is nothing "disingenuous" about my
>> >comparisons or my questions. There is a great deal disingenuous about
>> >your response.
>
>Not only that but "it" wasted time canceling my account at AOL just like
>I lead it to do-then it says it killfiles people to find more productive
>things to do!
Huh? Quit typing with your mouth full, Eddie.
> Yeah right! Sherilyn what will you do about the hundreds
>of machines in my labs? I don't have to log in, show ID, have an
>account or anything! How will you censor me now? :-))))))))
<apparent spam threat forwarded to postm...@aznet.net >
>You will
>have to have about 3500 different killfiles to not see me.
<apparent net abuse threat forwarded to postm...@aznet.net >
> Not possible-and then it calls my accounts "sock puppets" while it
>writes from one!!!! What is your boy name?
Whaddya say, Zeus?
>Yes you are correct Ann this one is not only disingenuos-but a lying,
>foul mouthed, specious, illogical, speculating spamming pile of crap
>that couldn't argue its way out of a paper bag! It runs like a chicken
>everytime I corner it.
When was the last time you ever cornered anything Eddie? Besides
that brief encounter in a round room?
>
>> Which you have yet to demonstrate.
>
>Not only has she demonstrated it, but I have as well-you have
>demonstrated nothing.
You've demonstrated your usual idiocy, Eddie.
>
>snipped entire Sherilyn rant and fake FAQ shit.
Don't forget the vas deferens thing, Eddie. Call it
'genetic hygiene.'
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
>© 1997 Altair Publications
>Astrological Consulting
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
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> >> >> You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
> >> >> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
> >> >> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
> >> >> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
> >> >> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
> >Oh I see, what about the Tuskeegee experiments that the president just
> >apologized for wherein blacks were allowed to get and maintain syphlis
> >simply to observe the development of the disease even though there was a
> >cure FOR 40 YEARS!!!!
> If you wish to compare the behavior of the rubbernecks on this group to
> the most unscrupulous and unprincipled scientists, that's fine by me.
> Just don't expect me to respect you (or them) for it.
These were just normal scientists. I nailed you thats all.
> [bullshit snipped]
FAQ shit snipped.
Sherilyn
In article <3437D3...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.ea063f14...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
>> Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>> >In article <du+IaMAZ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>> >Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
> ...
>
>> >> Astrologically-fixated rubbernecks and sickoes asking for the birth date
>> >> and time of a murdered model or a dead princess cannot be compared to
>> >> counselors, researchers, coroners, medical examiners, police, district
>> >> attorneys or (even) bona fide historians.
>
>apologized for wherein blacks were allowed to get and maintain syphlis
>simply to observe the development of the disease even though there was a
>cure FOR 40 YEARS!!!!
If you wish to compare the behavior of the rubbernecks on this group to
the most unscrupulous and unprincipled scientists, that's fine by me.
Just don't expect me to respect you (or them) for it.
[bullshit snipped]
Sherilyn
Subject line restored (Edmond snipped it).
sci.skeptic restored (Edmond snipped it).
In article <34394D...@mail.sdsu.edu>, Ewollmann
<woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
...
>> >
>> >> If you wish to compare the behavior of the rubbernecks on this group to
>> >> the most unscrupulous and unprincipled scientists, that's fine by me.
>> >> Just don't expect me to respect you (or them) for it.
>
>> >These were just normal scientists.
>
>> Wouldn't you agree that they displayed some notable defects in the
>> ethical department?
>
>Of course and your argument was that astrologers were in some way
>defunct for asking for data (actually called them sickos) for asking
>about Jon Benet as if this was the symbol of their defunctness. I simply
>demonstrated that not only are they not "sickos"
How, pray, did you demonstrate that they were not sickos? Because you
found some other people who were even worse?
Think about it, this could revolutionize crime prevention--we just line
people up in order of heinousness of crime, and whenever someone does
something wrong, they can say "don't blame me, he's even worse" and
point to the next person up the list. The meanest, nastiest criminal of
them all would have nobody to point to, but I guess he could always take
up astrology, make up a reality in which he's falsely accused, and point
back at his accusers.
>but that you attempt in
>every argument to look as if you are asking questions in integrity when
>in reality, you are simply spin doctoring to cover for your analytical
>errors and false analogy defects.
He means this bit:
I get this picture of a cop pulling a fellow astrologer over for
running a red light. You step in and rescue him with the words:
Wollmann:"It's okay officer, he's an astrologer, and many
ordinary German police officers connived in the
genocide of the Jews."
Cop: "Why of course, now that puts it all into perspective.
I now see that your colleague wasn't doing anything
wrong at all. Have a nice day, sir." <salutes>
>
>> >I nailed you thats all.
<giggle>
Get some help, Edmond.
>
>
>Snipped continued attempts to do so.
>EHW
Sometimes you've just got to laugh, bless 'im.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> Subject line restored (Edmond snipped it).
> sci.skeptic restored (Edmond snipped it).
Things Sherilyn snipped restored.
> In article <34394D...@mail.sdsu.edu>, Ewollmann
> <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes
> >Sherilyn wrote:
...
> >> >> If you wish to compare the behavior of the rubbernecks on this group to
> >> >> the most unscrupulous and unprincipled scientists, that's fine by me.
> >> >> Just don't expect me to respect you (or them) for it.
> >> >These were just normal scientists.
> >> Wouldn't you agree that they displayed some notable defects in the
> >> ethical department?
> >Of course and your argument was that astrologers were in some way
> >defunct for asking for data (actually called them sickos) for asking
> >about Jon Benet as if this was the symbol of their defunctness. I simply
> >demonstrated that not only are they not "sickos"
> How, pray, did you demonstrate that they were not sickos?
Irrelevent, you never proved they were. Spin therefore snipped.
> Because you
> found some other people who were even worse?
No, MS lying disingenuos spinstress-YOU asserted that there was
something different between astrologers asking for data and that they
were sickos as opposed to so called "official" askers for data such as
scientists or what have you-I simply nailed you that this was not only
not so, but demonstrablew in reverse.
> Think about it,
I've thought about everything abviously quite a bit longer than you-you
tried to get me out-I'm still here, you tried to defeat astrology
arguments I kicked your ass, you tried to defeat me with your origins
shit-I kicked your ass-bottom line?-you aint shit and I kicked your ass,
now shut up and get out.
--
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
----
Subject: A riddle for the insightful
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net>
Date: 1997/08/24
Message-Id: <3400F8...@aznet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.spirituality.circle
[More Headers]
Saturn square and heaven sent
of another worldly-critical bent.
Foolish stories, torn and rent.
The one who knows has came and went.
Loss of trust, lack of hope.
You've bought these things and cannot cope.
Who's right whose wrong, is held too long.
What is left is just yourself,
And Camelot remains upon the shelf.
I summon these truths from other worlds,
and boldly proclaim-flags unfurled.
The promise you see, not in little things,
but the depth of soul who always sings.
The taste is now upon your lips,
a train of events...the source, eclipse.
From the accurate prediction "RIDDLE FOR THE INSIGHTFUL" by;
Jim Rogers
Ewollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
> > Hope 'he' loves my warranted complaint. A proven spammer
> > threatening to spam again always makes admins sweat.
> Great, he has nothing to do with this accountt either!
> SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right, of course; "TRUTH" should have sent the heads-up to
sdsu.edu's sys-admins, as they're the folks who'd have to deal with
mopping up the mess if you were to suddenly become very stupid and make
good on your massive anonymous spam threat. A midnight spammer hopping
from machine to machine to spread the abusing source out to a large pool
of unassigned accounts that they intended to keep freely accessible to
their students and/or faculty would really make their day; I'm sure
they'd appreciate leads on who would be behind such a thing, and your
threat is now a matter of very public record. I can't imagine why you're
so brazenly flaunting this potentiality. Are you just begging for some
prankster at the U to get you into hot water?
You seem to thrive on making life difficult for yourself; I can imagine
that in your biker-bar days you had more than your share of broken
bottles and other sundry sharp objects pointed at you due to your
braggadocio. You're taking all this stuff far too seriously.
Jim
Ewollmann
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
> Hope 'he' loves my warranted complaint. A proven spammer
> threatening to spam again always makes admins sweat.
Great, he has nothing to do with this accountt either!
SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tr...@Beauty.com is a lie and a con.
Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > Hope 'he' loves my warranted complaint. A proven spammer
> > > threatening to spam again always makes admins sweat.
> > Great, he has nothing to do with this accountt either!
> > SNIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You're right, of course; "TRUTH" should have sent the heads-up to
> sdsu.edu's sys-admins, as they're the folks who'd have to deal with
> mopping up the mess if you were to suddenly become very stupid and make
> good on your massive anonymous spam threat. ...[etc]...
In fact, postm...@aznet.net may not be appropriate to bother about
_any_ recent post from Ed; be sure to check the full headers, first --
all of his recent aznet posts are coming out of sdsu
(newshub.sdsu.edu!not-for-mail). I would imagine that the reason is
simply to redirect any personal e-mail responses to his preferred e-mail
box, presumably aznet -- when posting from one particular account, I
redirect replies in a similar fashion to my own preferred e-mail box.
Jim
Sherilyn
In article <343987...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
...
>
>> How, pray, did you demonstrate that they were not sickos?
>
>Irrelevent, you never proved they were. Spin therefore snipped.
You don't agree with me that people who ask for the personal details of
a murdered young woman by name are sickoes? And those who post the
address and phone number of Buckingham Palace only a couple of days
after the death of Princess Diana? How would you feel if this was your
daughter and you came across such posts in a newsgroup? How would you
feel if, as you mourn a much-loved employer and mentor, the phone rings
and some thoughtless, brutal clod asks for her birth details?
>
>> Because you
>> found some other people who were even worse?
>
>No, MS lying disingenuos spinstress-YOU asserted that there was
>something different between astrologers asking for data and that they
>were sickos as opposed to so called "official" askers for data such as
>scientists or what have you
Did I say anything about their identity that made them sickoes? No, I
did not. Their behavior marked them out--whether they had been
scientists or astrologers.
>-I simply nailed you that this was not only
>not so, but demonstrablew in reverse.
Ah, you mean you found some scientists who were even sicker than the
people whom I called "sickoes", and that made me wrong? How quaint.
You can't answer my point, which is why you keep snipping it.
>
>> Think about it,
>
>I've thought about everything abviously quite a bit longer than you-you
>tried to get me out-I'm still here, you tried to defeat astrology
>arguments I kicked your ass, you tried to defeat me with your origins
>shit-I kicked your ass-bottom line?-you aint shit and I kicked your ass,
>now shut up and get out.
Nope. I think you'll find you have to do a lot more than huff and puff
to "kick my ass" in any subject. You latest self-immolation campaign
with the spam is indicative of desperation.
>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."
>
...
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!
John Teggatz
In article <zzZTtNCL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Get some help, Edmond.
> >
> >
> >Snipped continued attempts to do so.
> >EHW
>
> Sometimes you've just got to laugh, bless 'im.
Entertainment value is all Edmond has left. (Credibility, respectability,
etc., are long gone). He sure seems to have a lot more time on his hands
than I do... still at it, posting away. Trouble is, the humor wears thin
after a while. And Ed's posts have a noticable angry edge to them which
they did not have a few months ago (back in his song-quoting, "peace and
love" phase).
But yeah, he's a Funny Guy.
John T.
Tr...@beauty.com
On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:35:01 -0600, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
wrote:
>In article <jhntggtz-ya0240800...@news.execpc.com>,
>jhnt...@execpc.com says...
>>
>> Entertainment value is all Edmond has left. (Credibility, respectability,
>> etc., are long gone). He sure seems to have a lot more time on his hands
>> than I do... still at it, posting away. Trouble is, the humor wears thin
>> after a while. And Ed's posts have a noticable angry edge to them which
>> they did not have a few months ago (back in his song-quoting, "peace and
>> love" phase).
>>
>> But yeah, he's a Funny Guy.
>>
>> John T.
>>
>
>Hi there *G*
>
>Ummm, speak for yourself...I still consider Ed credible
You consider someone who uses multiple identities to post flames and
ad hominem attacks credible? You consider spamming credible?
You consider newsgroup post flooding credible? You consider
attempted censorship of other posters credible?
Your standards are amazingly low.
> and respect the
>amount of work he had to do to become as knowledgeable in astrology as he
>is...don't know if I'd be as generous with my time and information as he
>is...FOR FREE....
In the public newsgroups at least, Eddie's advice is worth exactly
what he charges for it.
LazzWaldo
Fox Mulder wrote:
Ummm, speak for yourself
>That's all one can do, Foxy!...
>I still consider Ed credible and respect the
>amount of work he had to do to become as knowledgeable in astrology as he
>is...
I respect and am impressed by the amount of time he put in to become
knowledgable about astrology, too. I just wish he'd spent it on something
worthwhile instead.
>...don't know if I'd be as generous with my time and information as he
is...FOR FREE....
Since he doesn't have a real job, he has a lot of spare time, and he charges
what he's worth.
Rick Ellis
In article <34385E...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>I nailed you thats all.
<snicker>
Ewollmann
Ricky Ellis one line spin doctor from Huntington Beach with a lousy car
Please post some astrology;
Mr. Goodbar.
Tr...@beauty.com
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:05:39 -0700, Ewollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
wrote:
>Sock puppet Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
<yawn>
How many accounts do you post from, Eddie?
How many different names have you posted under, Eddie?
How many post-conversations have you carried on with
your doppelgangers, Eddie?
Truth is unitary.
>
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:35:01 -0600, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
>> wrote:
>
>> >In article <jhntggtz-ya0240800...@news.execpc.com>,
>> >jhnt...@execpc.com says...
>
>Nothing new, same old jealousy...
>
>> >Hi there *G*
>
>> >Ummm, speak for yourself...I still consider Ed credible
>
>Thank you!:)
Some people still believe the Earth is flat and Elvis lives on
the island of Skorpios with JFK.
>
>> You consider someone who uses multiple identities to post flames and
>> ad hominem attacks credible? You consider spamming credible?
>> You consider newsgroup post flooding credible? You consider
>> attempted censorship of other posters credible?
>
>The sock puppet speaks.
Ad hominem. Answer the questions, Eddie.
>You consider someone like you who posts off
>topic to a group he has no interest in other than to harrass and make
>fun of people who post on astrolgy-FROM a SOCK PUPPET- credible?:-)))))
Fallacious. You post off-topic all the time, Eddie. You use multiple
names and answer yourself in your own posts, then remain silent when
pro-astrology posters do the same thing. You spam this newsgroup and
lost your AOL account as a result, Eddie.
Who's the sock puppet now, Eddie?
>These people are not stupid-at least they know who I am but my so-called
>opponents hide behind sock puppets, throwing stones from glass houses.
Learn how to read headers, Eddie. You once threatened to contact my
ISP about my posts. If they're as bad as you say, then they should
immediately terminate my account. Do it now - I'm waiting and won't
go away. If you don't like it, tough.
>
>> Your standards are amazingly low.
>
>Your brain must be exceedingly small.
Ad hominem. Don't confuse my brain with your stature in this
newsgroup or your genitals.
>
>> > and respect the
>> >amount of work he had to do to become as knowledgeable in astrology as he
>> >is...don't know if I'd be as generous with my time and information as he
>> >is...FOR FREE....
>
>
>> In the public newsgroups at least, Eddie's advice is worth exactly
>> what he charges for it.
>
>At least I can give some, what astrology would you like to discuss?
What civilization based on a Theodore Giesel book would you like to
discuss, Eddie? A society based on 'The Cat in the Hat' would be
just as likely as astrology to actually exist.
> Or
>do you have no respect whatever for others rights to hold different
>opinions?
I have respect for most opinions, and people are free to make their
opinions known in any suitable forum that they choose AFAIC.
However, I have the corresponding freedom to make my opinion known
about the feces-smeared lies of lunatics and con artists.
If you don't like it, stop me.
>Spam snipperdoodle:-)
Did we learn a new word today, Eddie? You are a spammer
and you talk to yourself. Get help soon, Eddie.
Sherilyn
In article <343BBD...@mail.sdsu.edu>, Ewollmann
<woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes
>Sock puppet Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
...
I'm definitely going to have to write that sock puppet FAQ--clearly
Edmond doesn't realise _he_ is the one who has been running sock puppets
around here.
archimeden, hoovamoon, and zeus150000 were sock puppets--accounts run by
Edmond to cheerlead his own posts. There is some evidence that
rasputin, fred "flinstone" and dog...@afternoon.com may be Edmond's
latest sock puppets.
"Hoova! mon muthma!" is a saying that Edmond claims means "Orion is
home" in "the ancient tongue".
Edmond's AOL account was off for a short while, then reappeared,
only to be canceled for good on 26th.
I'd add a suspicion about astralplan, but believe it possible
that this was a genuine wannabee "skeptic" cheerleader. The
astralplan posts have not been canceled. It is possible that
its irritating hoovamoonesque style was a misguided attempt at
parody.
"That was a good prediction Mr. Wollmann! My they are simpletons aren't
they!"
-hoovamoon, Sep 21.
"I think Mr. Wollmann continues to make fools out of you all." -
hoovamoon,
June 29
"I have found through the years that no one has seemed to really outdo
Grant Lewi the Author of "Heaven Knows What", is there anyone else
familiar with this text?" -Ed Wollmann, June 16
"Hi Ed: The idea sounds great. I have not picked up the book " Heavens
Know What" yet, but I can see why the idea of getting used to the
Sun/Moon blends would be that important for anyone beginer or not. How
would you like to ineract on this topic? What form would you like to
see for the discussion? Discussing certain blends? Discussing the book
or other similar books? Please let me know,"
-hoovamoon, Jun 18
"The EM opens to infinity at each end I believe this is what Mr.
Wollmann is saying." -hoovamoon, June 20
"Mr. Wollmann, how do you interpret the inconjuncts in this way? I have
Venus inconjunct Uranus. Any comments would be appreciated.
Archimedes." -archimeden, Sep 16
"Yes, thank you Mr. Wollmann beats the hell out of TROLL BAIT."
-archimeden, Sep 17
"full-blown kooks such as Peat Simpleton and Ed Wollmann"
'Where is your evidence of "full blown kooks" buddy? ' archimeden, Sep
17
"Yes, Mr Wollmann, this is correct. He was also very much a person who
considered astrology to be in the realm of his primal
images."-zeus150000, Sep 3
"Would you please stop harrassing this man? The issue is astrology and I
have to agree with Mr. Wollmann, I can't find one post with astrology in
it by you." -zeus150000, Sep 3
"Mr. Wollman I have found these explanations to be very interesting and
from a very different viewpoint. The Gods are pleased. Do you have other
writings available? Thank you in advance for any information you may
send." -zeus150000, Aug 31
"Refer to spica's and Zeus'-excellent interpretation of astrological
configurations." Ed Wollmann Sep 1
"Yes, let me thank you Edmond for the compliment!" -Zeus150000, Sep 1
"My birthdate is Jul 7, 1925, in Cincinatti Ohio at 4:00am." -
Zeus150000, Sep 1
"Very well said Mr. Wollmann. It is unfortunate this level of insight
cannot be sustained here." -Zeus150000, Aug 31
"I assumed people knew that it was me, many people even called me Edmond
when I posted as Zeus and some other names I use. Perhaps you just
missed them." -Edmond Wollmann, Sep 7, on being unmasked
"Hoova mon muhtmha (Hoova is home) Orion light." -Ed Wollmann, Aug 13,
1996, at end of a post
"This began eons ago when incarnations from a planet in the system of
Orion (Hoova) began an influx in the area we now know as the middle
east." -Ed Wollmann, Jan 21
"Hoova! mon muhtmah! In the ancient toungue!(from one of my
incarnations in the Orion system-meaning I am home-a statement of pride
and control)." -Ed Wollmann, Nov 14, 1996
"I also had a strong incarnation in 1600 England, a planet in the
system of Arcturus, in Egypt as an astrologer/Falconer, the Indus Valley
as an Aryan astrologer, Babylonia as an astrologer, Atlantis as female
warrior, India as Falconer/astrologer again (instrumental in developing
the caste system).. and a future incarnation as a 4th dimensional alien
from the Pleiadian star system. Boy are we going to get responses to
this eh?" -Ed Wollmann, Nov 14, 1996
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Fox Mulder
Ewollmann wrote:
>
> Sock puppet Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:35:01 -0600, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <jhntggtz-ya0240800...@news.execpc.com>,
> > >jhnt...@execpc.com says...
>
> Nothing new, same old jealousy...
>
> > >Hi there *G*
>
> > >Ummm, speak for yourself...I still consider Ed credible
>
> Thank you!:)
>
> > ad hominem attacks credible? You consider spamming credible?
> > You consider newsgroup post flooding credible? You consider
> > attempted censorship of other posters credible?
>
I said I consider Ed credible...I still consider Ed credible, along
with a lot of others here, if the credibility of any of them is
attacked, I will post the same (and I'll consider them all credible
tomorrow as well)
BTW if you're so against spamming why don't you go over to alt.hackers,
alt.hacking, or alt.hackerz and find out who the really big spammers
are...the post lists
LazzWaldo
FoxMulder wrote:
>BTW if you're so against spamming why don't you go over to alt.hackers,
>alt.hacking, or alt.hackerz and find out who the really big spammers
>are...the post lists
Ahh, the old "Officer, there were other people going faster than *I* was!"
routine...
The old "Yeah? So what if my friend is a liar and a swindler! Look over there!
A heroin addict!"
The ol'
"I won't deny he's a creep, but look over there! Other, more creepier creeps!"
Ann Shermann
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <343BBD...@mail.sdsu.edu>, Ewollmann
> <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> writes
> >Sock puppet Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
> ...
> I'm definitely going to have to write that sock puppet FAQ--clearly
> Edmond doesn't realise _he_ is the one who has been running sock puppets
> around here.
[snipped mass quoting of irrelevancies since Netscape doesn't like more
quoted material and original post unlike your browser, Sherilyn, which
permits, obviously unlimited quoted with nothing original in response]
The primary "kook" on alt.astrology for the last couple of months
without peer is someone who knows nothing about astrology, posts more
than any other poster, and thereby sabotages the NG since all persons
even remotely cognizant of the reality of Internet know that many, if
not most ISP's are overloaded and thereby drop messages from the NG
which are no longer available to their users because some folks like
Sherilyn post these meaningless messages and thereby sabotage the NG to
which they are posting. The messages relating to astrology get dropped
because there is so much junk mail like Sherilyn postings. Sabotage is
Sherilyn's intent. Edmond, OTOH, is an astrologer who should be able
to post in alt.astrology without the continuous sabotage of Sherilyn.
As should we all. Unfortunately, Sherilyn has a power problem and the
alt. newsgroups appear to have no recourse against such demented
personas.
"Sherilyn" is a "sock puppet" himself. Who know what his name really is
although supposedly he actually had an Internet name at one time. So
for any consideration about complaints from "Sherilyn" about "sock
puppets" perhaps "Sherilyn" should disclose his own identify.
Ann Shermann
(no sock puppet, just a real woman who has no confusion about who she
is)
Robert J. Pease
John Teggatz wrote:
>
> In article <zzZTtNCL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Get some help, Edmond.
> > >
> > >
> > >Snipped continued attempts to do so.
> > >EHW
> >
> > Sometimes you've just got to laugh, bless 'im.
>
> etc., are long gone). He sure seems to have a lot more time on his hands
> than I do... still at it, posting away. Trouble is, the humor wears thin
> after a while. And Ed's posts have a noticable angry edge to them which
> they did not have a few months ago (back in his song-quoting, "peace and
> love" phase).
>
> But yeah, he's a Funny Guy.
>
> John T.
the only thing more boring than Big Bad ED himself is this thread.
How about some ISSUE now???
Tr...@beauty.com
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:57:36 -0600, Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com>
wrote:
>Ewollmann wrote:
>>
>> Sock puppet Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:35:01 -0600, fm...@XFiles.com (Fox Mulder)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >In article <jhntggtz-ya0240800...@news.execpc.com>,
>> > >jhnt...@execpc.com says...
>>
>> Nothing new, same old jealousy...
>>
>> > >Hi there *G*
>>
>> > >Ummm, speak for yourself...I still consider Ed credible
>>
>> Thank you!:)
>>
>> > You consider someone who uses multiple identities to post flames and
>> > ad hominem attacks credible? You consider spamming credible?
>> > You consider newsgroup post flooding credible? You consider
>> > attempted censorship of other posters credible?
>>
>
>I said I consider Ed credible...I still consider Ed credible, along
>with a lot of others here, if the credibility of any of them is
>attacked, I will post the same (and I'll consider them all credible
>tomorrow as well)
Then I guess that you consider censorship, schizophrenic behavior, and
ad hominem attacks on opposing viewpoints credible. Please never be
on my school board, city council, or legislature.
>
>BTW if you're so against spamming why don't you go over to alt.hackers,
>alt.hacking, or alt.hackerz and find out who the really big spammers
>are...the post lists
Been there done that. I don't have to hack or crack to do my
job - I don't have to.
I _know_ who the 'really big spammers' are (Wallace, Enlow, the
Enterprise Spammer, NJSH, et al). That's why I'm here and in a
lot of other places as well. I have over 50 confirmed 'kills' of
spammers and spamhauses in my files, and I always seek more.
Wallass is going to lose his court-ordered connectivity with AGIS
in a matter of days, and no other reputable backbone will even
consider providing him with connectivity after that, on pain of the
thundering objections of the anti-spam community. The lawsuits
pending against Spamford are starting to mount, and he had to
fight like hell to come up with the 12,000+ USD required to reconnect
with AGIS even for this short time.
When Spamford's and Enlow's dominoes finally fall, I will be able to
direct my full attention to extinguishing brush fires. Eddie's posts
fall into the category of 'smouldering match head' - please don't
flatter yourself that answering Eddie's lunacy is all I do.
Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
Ann Shermann
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:08:36 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3437bcd4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
><a...@mexia.com> writes
>>On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 19:29:45 +0100, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Brazening it out, Ann?
>>
>>No, I am debating. And you?
>>
After reading this response of your, Sherilyn, I certainly do
understand why you identify with the word "brazen."
>>>
>>>Reposted to sci.skeptic in full.
>>
>>Works for me. I snipped it originally so as not to embarrass you in
>>front of your pals, but I'm happy to let them see the whole picture
>>despite their predilictions.
>
>I'm not the one who is defending a bunch of corpse-strippers.
Gross specious hyperbole, Sherilyn. Asking about the FACTS of birth
data can not be construed as "corpse-stripping" by anyone UNLESS that
person believes birth data is so revealing of the intimate details of
a life that the birth data must be kept secret even after death. Do
YOU believe birth data is that revealing, Sherilyn?
>
>[much snippage for space:
That's not the only reason which will become apparent to all since you
snipped 2/3 of my post without so indicating and evaded ALL the
questions contained therein.
>In essence, I called an astrologer who asked
>for the birth date and time of a murdered young girl as sicko, and I had
>replied to Ann's response by snipping them
What you snipped was 7 out of 8 questions (watch those unidentified
antecedents).
>and inserting]
>...
>>>>>[disingenuous medical comparison snipped]
>>>>
>[Ann replied]
>>>>More mischaracterizations, Sherilyn? Obviously you don't have answers
>>>>for my points, so let's look at those points again:
>>>>
>>>>>Is that how you respond to all autopsies? To researchers who look
>>>>>at cancer? To researchers who look at AIDS? How about historians?
>>>>>Ministers and counselors who listen to the stories of the bereaved
>>>>>and ask questions in order to better understand and thereby help?
>>>>>How about district attorneys, police, and all law enforcement -- all
>>>>>sickos? Anybody who has ever asked, "how did it happen"?
>>>>> All "sickos"?
>>>>
>>>>Why evade with mischaracterizations and snipping?
>>>
>>>You have yet to reveal any mischaracterizations but your own.
>>
>>Please quit playing stupid. READ my full paragraph again. Your
>>mischaracterizations and evasions are self-evident. Out of 8
>>questions, you snipped 7, totally mischaracterized all with the word
>>"disingenuous" and apparently just forgot the 5 of 8 which do not
>>relate to anything "medical." Therefore, your "disingenuous medical
>>comparison snipped" is appropriately labeled evasion and
>>mischaracterization. I have mischaracterized nothing. Further, I
>>omitted nothing.
>
>Ah, so that is the burden of your complaint: that I failed to categorize
>your hypocritical comparisons of your cronies' USENET requests with the
>work of bona fide researchers, doctors, counselors and LEO's as
>"medical, historical, pastoral and law enforcement comparisons"? And
>that I added my opinion that such comparisons were, and I think I was
>being *very* charitable in using this word, _disingenuous_?
No, Sherilyn, you snipped all but the autopsie question and
characterized ALL with "disingenuous medical comparison snipped."
Only _after_ I called you on that deceptive snipping did you backtrack
and decide that everybody but astrologers are "bona fide researchers."
Of course, it doesn't dawn on you that of the astrologers you see
posting on this NG, there are "bona fide" psychologists, astronomers,
and historians (and those are just the ones I know about) because like
the rest of your opinions, you form them without benefit of getting
any facts.
>
>If that is the best you can do, I don't think you'll ever succeed in
>"embarrassing" anyone except yourself.
Look again.
>
>>(Omission of your opponents argument in debate is
>>tantamount to the flag of surrender; you need to remember that.)
>
>You opinion doesn't bother me, Ann.
So what? My point addressed the common rules of debate and
discourse. By ignoring and snipping you admit before the world that
you cannot address the issues put to you.
>Now that you have revealed your
>level of "debate" (your word) I feel that I can snip or ignore your
>ranting with impunity. Nothing you can say can trouble me or demand a
>reply.
>
>[ranting snipped]
Let's see what Sherilyn deems "ranting" shall we?
--------------------------
Points 1 and 2 which Sherilyn snipped and deemed "ranting":
"Astrologers serve as many folks as all of the above do, so why
is their inquiry legitimate and our inquiry "ghoulish" and "sicko"?
Can you say "double standard"? Are you fixated on the
'astrologically-fixated'?"
--------------------------
Questions 3 and 4 which Sherilyn snipped, ignored THRICE, deemed
"ranting":
>>How does one learn if not by case studies and examining data? You
>>pride yourself on compiling lists of articles, presumably "academic"
>>articles on a subject about which you know nothing. How do you think
>>those "academics" which you admire learn? To characterize as
>>"ghoulish" and "sicko" that which you think has no meaning, i.e. the
>>birth data of an individual and the knowledge relating thereto, while
>
>No, there are more of your mischaracterizations here.
"I asked you two questions. You answered neither. More issue
avoidance obviously."
------------------------------
Questions 5 and 6, snipped and ignored by Sherilyn, deemed "ranting":
> I described the
>openly expressed interest in the birth details of a murdered young woman
>as "ghoulish" and "sicko". This emphatically does have meaning.
Why? According to you birth data has no meaning whatsoever so how can
it be "ghoulish" when you do not find birth data meaningful in the
first place?
----------------------------
Questions 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which Sherilyn snipped and ignored:
>To fasten on one garish and sensationalist case after another is the
>antithesis of fact gathering.
Two cases in how many many months? That's 'one garish and
sensationalist case after another"? The case of the little girl's
unsolved murder has been going on for almost a year -- unsolved. It
has been covered by newspapers, magazines, television and yet, when
you see a series of about 5 posts on alt.astrology THAT is "the
antithesis of fact gathering." What is birth data if NOT a fact? The
death of Diana? The whole world asked questions but only astrologers
are "ghoulish"? Your prejudice is showing and we all know what
prejudice means, don't we? Judgement without knowledge.
-------------------------------
FALLACY of Sherilyn's entire premise highlighted and totally ignored:
>Murder statistics are routinely collected
>by the police and can be examined in a non-intrusive, impersonal, and
>statistically valid manner.
>
Tell that to the guys in homicide, specifically the guys in homicide
who are trying to solve the case of the murder of the little girl.
Same is same, Sherilyn, regardless of your protestations. And here
we come back to your mutually exclusive propositions: a) birth data
can provide no meaningful information, yet, b) giving birth data is
intrusive and personal. If a) is valid then b) is not. If b) is
valid then a) is not. You can't have it BOTH ways. All you
"rational" cynics are pretty illogical in this regard.
------------------------------------
Questions 13 and 14, reiterating fallacy, snipped and ignored:
You still did not say exactly why you mischaracterized or snipped in
the FIRST place or how you arrived atthe conclusion that what is
"sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander." Please do explain
this dichotomy of thought.
Indeed, please explain your differentitation of data being legitimate
for one discipline while "ghoulish" for another.
---------------------------------------
To all of those questions and points which Sherilyn characterized as a
"rant" and thereby omitted, Sherilyn's total answer is as follows:
>In a fit of charity, I cleared out my killfile when I finally had
>Edmond's spam under control. I now revoke that act in your case.
Boy, I can certainly understand why. It is never pleasant to confront
the vacuousness of your own intellect and its arguments as evidenced
by your continued failure to address all of the above points. Try to
shoot the messenger rather than address the poverty of your own
position. Then we see the final admission of intellectual faiilure,
to-wit:
>I should have known you were a sick one when, in response to a casual
>mention by me of a kids' TV show, you came out with that story about how
>you made those kids put their hands over their dicks before the ball
>game. As a parent, I don't have to debate with sickoes like you. I
>only hope other parents in your area know about your repulsive
>obsessions.
More projection? Please don't tell me you are going to start
describing your genitals again in the subject lines of posts. Nobody
cares about your genitals except you. And I am sure there is not a
single citizen of the UK who thinks a soccer coach is "sicko" for
dealing with the proper stance taken by every male soccer player IN
THE WORLD when forming "the wall" for an indirect kick. You should
put a sack over your head on that one, Sherilyn. Or let your
countrymen do it for you. (reckon it shows how desparate you are to
avert attention away from your unsupported argument?)
>*plonk*
I'm sure. Thank you for confirming yet again the dearth of
intellectual underpinnings for your opinions and posts. Surely you
realize that "plonk" is just an admission of your inability to carry
on reasoned discourse.
BTW, I am really happy you finally revealed your reason for promoting
a moderated astrology NG. I thought it was quite amusing for you
would finally admit it. Of course, that reasoning is as shallow as
the "sicko" label you try to promulgate without any substance.
I hope this is as good for you as it is for me, Sherilyn,
Ann
Brant Watson
<snip all>
So to get back to the astrological discussion, what was it you
needed Jon Benet's birth data for? Was it so you could mine the data
and "find" some indicator that she was going to meet with a tragic
death at that particular time?
If so, then I would suggest that you could demonstrate the
usefulness and legitimacy of astrology by using the facts of her death
to tell us the birth data of the killer. This would be very helpful
in solving the case. (If astrology can be used to determine that
someone is going to die at a certain time, then it should be just as
useful in determining when the killer was born.)
You have compared an astrologer's interest in Jon Benet to others
who have a legitimate reason to ask personal questions about
her...people like police detectives, coroners, etc. If your interest
is just as legitimate, it would be reasonable to ask how so. Sherilyn
considered your interest "ghoulish" because she probably believes, as
I do, that you just want to play games with it. So what legitimate
use of JBR's birth data did you have in mind?
There are many statements in your post which deserve criticism, but
I would like to address this one, in particular:
You wrote:
> Tell that to the guys in homicide, specifically the guys in homicide
>who are trying to solve the case of the murder of the little girl.
>Same is same, Sherilyn, regardless of your protestations. And here
>we come back to your mutually exclusive propositions: a) birth data
>can provide no meaningful information, yet, b) giving birth data is
>intrusive and personal. If a) is valid then b) is not. If b) is
>valid then a) is not. You can't have it BOTH ways. All you
>"rational" cynics are pretty illogical in this regard.
Actually this is a demonstration of your own illogic. Personal
inquiries can be both intrusive and irrelevant or useless. For
example, let's say we were talking about some personal tragedy in your
own life and someone asked you whether or not you like to watch
x-rated videos. The question would be useless in providing meaningful
information as well as intrusive and personal. Would you like me to
give you some other examples? Okay, here's one: asking about a
child's birth date, time, and location as it applies to the child's
murder. (In fact, my video example is much more likely to be relevant
than the one about birth data.)
Brant
Sherilyn
In article <343c4c92...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
<bra...@erols.com> writes
...
>Personal
>inquiries can be both intrusive and irrelevant or useless. For
>example, let's say we were talking about some personal tragedy in your
>own life and someone asked you whether or not you like to watch
>x-rated videos. The question would be useless in providing meaningful
>information as well as intrusive and personal. Would you like me to
>give you some other examples? Okay, here's one: asking about a
>child's birth date, time, and location as it applies to the child's
>murder. (In fact, my video example is much more likely to be relevant
>than the one about birth data.)
>
Sherilyn
In article <19971009045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, LazzWaldo
<lazz...@aol.com> writes
>Ann Sherman wrote:
>
>>So for any consideration about complaints from "Sherilyn" about "sock
>>puppets" perhaps "Sherilyn" should disclose his own identify.
Her.
Ann's dick obsession is showing again. I certainly wouldn't let _my_
son onto her football team. She is, of course, in my killfile for her
dishonest attacks on me.
My identity is on the WWW for anyone with enough curiosity to find it
out. I don't make a habit of disclosing it directly because I prefer
the name by which my friends, on and off the Net, know me: Sherilyn.
>
>>Ann Shermann
>>(no sock puppet, just a real woman who has no confusion about who she is)
>
>With all due respect Ann, you've got this sock puppet thing all wrong. Posting
> with one name, whether it's an alias or not, identifies one as a single
> person. It's when one invents other names, in an attempt to bolster one's
> ideas and gain support from "others", that the sock puppet term comes into
> play.
...
I really _must_ get that Sock Puppet FAQ finished.
Richard White
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Brant Watson wrote:
> So to get back to the astrological discussion, what was it you
> needed Jon Benet's birth data for? Was it so you could mine the data
> and "find" some indicator that she was going to meet with a tragic
> death at that particular time?
>
> If so, then I would suggest that you could demonstrate the
> usefulness and legitimacy of astrology by using the facts of her death
> to tell us the birth data of the killer. This would be very helpful
> in solving the case. (If astrology can be used to determine that
> someone is going to die at a certain time, then it should be just as
> useful in determining when the killer was born.)
Is this true? Can astrology be used in reverse like this? If so,
then Jon Benet's birth data can be "reverse engineered" from the date
of her death, no? If not, then why do you suggest it should be
a reasonable thing to expect?
Richard.
Ewollmann
Fox Mulder wrote:
> Hi there *G*
> amount of work he had to do to become as knowledgeable in astrology as he
> is...don't know if I'd be as generous with my time and information as he
> is...FOR FREE....
All astrologers who post here deserve respect for the time they take.
Teaching classes, or lecturing, or writing or counseling-one gets
respect for doing these and most often paid. Here we get harrassed,
abused and all manner of personal attacks. I have had more criticism of
my personal life here than perhaps anywhere-curious part is, none of
them who do know me!
Thanks for your comments, let me take this opportunity to thank those
who take time from their schedules to post and answer. I again suggest
that to use alt.astrology.metapsych will not hurt anyone but the cynics.
It doesn't solve anything not to.
EHW
Ann Shermann
>In article <343c4c92...@news.erols.com>, Brant Watson
><bra...@erols.com> writes
>...
>>Personal
>>inquiries can be both intrusive and irrelevant or useless. For
>>example, let's say we were talking about some personal tragedy in your
>>own life and someone asked you whether or not you like to watch
>>x-rated videos. The question would be useless in providing meaningful
>>information as well as intrusive and personal. Would you like me to
>>give you some other examples? Okay, here's one: asking about a
>>child's birth date, time, and location as it applies to the child's
>>murder. (In fact, my video example is much more likely to be relevant
>>than the one about birth data.)
>>
>I rarely indulge in me-too posts, but I make an exception for this.
But, of course, since you and Brant share a common overriding theme in
your participation on alt.astrology -- intentional deception of your
fellow human beings.
Ann
Brant Watson
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:12:39 -0400, Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu>
wrote:
Actually, I don't think it is reasonable any more than it is
reasonable to expect someone to be able to make predictions or
personality assessments on the basis of birth data. An astrologer,
however should be able to explain why one can be done while the other
can't.
Brant
Tr...@beauty.com
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:29:18 GMT, a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
<snip>
>But, of course, since you and Brant share a common overriding theme in
>your participation on alt.astrology -- intentional deception of your
>fellow human beings.
Posted by one who actually stated in this very newsgroup that make-
money-fast and pyramid schemes are perfectly legal according to the
US Postal Service.
Fox Mulder
In article <61jrv5$8...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com says...
> Fox Mulder wrote:
> > ... Tr...@Beauty.Com says...
>
> > > Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
> > >
> > > How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
> > Some of us are just lucky *G* Sorry you can't share in it, but there's
> > nothing I can do to change that
>
> You would seem to be concurring with the skeptical position that belief
> in astrology is a matter of pure faith, as there is nothing objectively
> provable about it. True?
>
> Jim
>
Hi Jim
That's not what I meant at all...I thought about it after I posted and
was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
"sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
for themselves.
All they'd have to do is buy an ephemeris (they cost around $20.00) get a
print out of their natal chart (I'm sure that someone would do it--I'd
even do it for you-takes about 20 seconds to do it) and just start to pay
attention to what's going on in their life and check the transits in
effect (you need to look at the present situation "up there" starting a
little before the actual aspect is exact--how long before depends on the
planet involved--). Just watch ONE planet's transit...Saturn or Mercury
to start (Mercury moves fast). After a year, sit there and decide for
yourself if there is any odd coincidence between the aspects the
transiting planets are making to your natal placements. That's all it
would take. Do the same for friends...(you'll get more information that
way-won't have to wait so long to start forming an opinion). You're not
"brainwashing" yourself...if something happens it happens...Don't even
look BEFORE, just wait and when something happens in your life that you
"notice" go backwards and check the ephemeris...that's how I started, by
looking backwards...no self delusion there, after a while you start
looking at what else was going on at the time and then you start looking
at what's coming up and paying attention to your life (just to kind of
"check") *G* Then you come to the realization that, ummm, something's
going on here...
You'll start to detect patterns, periods of time when your life runs
smoothly and periods when it's better to stay in bed *G* Do you think
that the general acceptance of attitudes such as "when you're hot you're
hot; when you're not, you're not" and "everything runs in cycles" came
about because the phrase was particularly catchy? Einstein at one time,
(during a visit with Prime Minister Nehru) took out a piece of paper
and wrote a list: on one side, dates; on the other side a number of
events (this was related to the life of Gandhi). He showed the parallel
evolution of the "bomb" and Gandhi's satyagraha methods/accomplishments.
Another coincidence in life. Another example of the utilization of
free will and innate interests. Both men changed the world, both in the
same time frame, both with the same movement of planets occurring "up
there". Each used his free will and intellectual ability in the way he
chose.
All these arguments presented by "skeptics" are arguments in theory.
They argue the theory of astrology, except for those that just want to
irritate, confuse and disrupt the newsgroup for whatever pathetic reason
they have. Well the "theory" that a brahma bull is made up of little
invisible particles is a little wierd too isn't it--particularly when
he's got his head down and he's looking at you like you're dinner. I
don't really want to hear scientific proof for the existence of atoms
from any skeptics...I said the THEORY is wierd, and it still is.
Part of the problem I think is that the astrologers who post here are
very advanced in their knowledge of the subject, and until you've
investigated the more mundane correlations it's hard to accept the
psychological connections. But trust me, when transiting Saturn is
square or opposition your natal Uranus, something is going to happen.
For a long time I accepted the mundane and was TOTALLY negative as to
the psychological...that too made itself known to me *G*
Then you come to a point where you realize that rather than an ideology
that implies kind of a "rat in a maze" scenario, astrology is a key to
a greater depth of understanding of this whole universe and our part in
it. I want to understand, I don't know why, but I do. It gives me a
feeling of exhilaration when something in my brain finally "gets it"...
BTW, what's the mechanism of action of "understanding"? But we do
"understand" don't we? And we do learn don't we...how???? There's not
even a theory.
Jim, get the ephemeris - the whole universe is out there *G*
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ea7d20f6...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>In article <61jrv5$8...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com says...
>> Fox Mulder wrote:
>> > ... Tr...@Beauty.Com says...
>>
>> > > Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
>> > >
>> > > How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
>> > ...
>> > Some of us are just lucky *G* Sorry you can't share in it, but there's
>> > nothing I can do to change that
>>
>> You would seem to be concurring with the skeptical position that belief
>> in astrology is a matter of pure faith, as there is nothing objectively
>> provable about it. True?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>Hi Jim
>
>That's not what I meant at all...I thought about it after I posted and
>was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
>"sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
>
>If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
>understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>for themselves.
Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
the astrology papers FAQ:
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Fox Mulder
In article <eEPoAMBX$iP0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
> >> Fox Mulder wrote:
> >> > ... Tr...@Beauty.Com says...
> >>
> >> > > Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
> >> > >
> >> > > How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
> >> > ...
> >> > Some of us are just lucky *G* Sorry you can't share in it, but there's
> >> > nothing I can do to change that
> >>
> >> You would seem to be concurring with the skeptical position that belief
> >> in astrology is a matter of pure faith, as there is nothing objectively
> >> provable about it. True?
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >Hi Jim
> >
> >That's not what I meant at all...I thought about it after I posted and
> >was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
> >"sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
> >
> >If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
> >understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
> >a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
> >for themselves.
> Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
> the astrology papers FAQ:
>
> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
Don't start playing your manipulative games, I'm not posting any answer
or response to this thread (so cleverly renamed) other than what is right
here. (Just think Sherilyn, if you took 1 post, broke it up into 4 or 5
"new threads" reposted the same and if everyone answered those 4 or 5 new
threads you could conceivably clog up the newsgroup with your irrelevant
stupid shit; of course, being the totally innocent, truth seeker that you
are, I'm sure you'd never stoop to something as obviously and innately
deceptive as that would be) Another plus is that it wouldn't even look
like spam. BTW I took sci.skeptic off - go spam on your own
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ea80295a...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>In article <eEPoAMBX$iP0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
...
>> >
>> >If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
>> >understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>> >a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>> >for themselves.
>> Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
>> the astrology papers FAQ:
>>
>> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
>
>Don't start playing your manipulative games, I'm not posting any answer
>or response to this thread (so cleverly renamed) other than what is right
>here.
Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
astrology.
Jim Rogers
Ewollmann wrote:
...
> All astrologers who post here deserve respect for the time they take.
Does that include Peat Simpleton, PMAFA Houseologist Ed? ;-)
Jim
Fox Mulder
In article <343E59...@aznet.net>, woll...@aznet.net says...
> >
> > If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
> > understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
> > a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
> > for themselves.
>
> unrealistic expectation-been there done that. They are spin doctors with
> agendas.
Sag moon *G*
Edmond Wollmann
Fox Mulder wrote:
> That's not what I meant at all...I thought about it after I posted and
> was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
> "sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
> If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
> understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
> a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
> for themselves.
You are asking them to be objective, unbiased and scientific. This is an
unrealistic expectation-been there done that. They are spin doctors with
agendas.
Snip for space.
--
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles
or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and
sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Jim Rogers
Brant Watson wrote:
> ...Richard White <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Brant Watson wrote:
> >> So to get back to the astrological discussion, what was it you
> >> needed Jon Benet's birth data for? Was it so you could mine the data
> >> and "find" some indicator that she was going to meet with a tragic
> >> death at that particular time?
> >>
> >> If so, then I would suggest that you could demonstrate the
> >> usefulness and legitimacy of astrology by using the facts of her death
> >> to tell us the birth data of the killer. This would be very helpful
> >> in solving the case. (If astrology can be used to determine that
> >> someone is going to die at a certain time, then it should be just as
> >> useful in determining when the killer was born.)
> >Is this true? Can astrology be used in reverse like this? If so,
> >then Jon Benet's birth data can be "reverse engineered" from the date
> >of her death, no? If not, then why do you suggest it should be
> >a reasonable thing to expect?
> Actually, I don't think it is reasonable any more than it is
> reasonable to expect someone to be able to make predictions or
> personality assessments on the basis of birth data. An astrologer,
> however should be able to explain why one can be done while the other
> can't.
That's too easy to counter, Brant. The set of solutions to examine is
virtually unbounded, which seems to me to be an unreasonable
expectation. However, presenting an abbreviated set of possible birth
data and selecting the correct match _should_ be within the capabilities
of an astrologer, because they would simply proceed with their normal
"forward" analyses and then decide which one fits the best.
Jim
Paul Schlyter
In article <343D5A...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Ewollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> All astrologers who post here deserve respect for the time they take.
who post here deserve respect for the time they take?
> Teaching classes, or lecturing, or writing or counseling-one gets
> respect for doing these and most often paid.
Commercial a$trologer ....
> Here we get harrassed, abused and all manner of personal attacks.
the truth too hard to bear?
> I have had more criticism of my personal life here than perhaps
> anywhere-curious part is, none of them who do know me!
me, without even knowing me....
Finally: if you are prepared to back up your claims, then you'll
get respect. If you bail out whenever asked to back up your claims,
you won't get any respect. In both cases, you deserve it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Jim Rogers
Fox Mulder wrote:
> ...jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com says...
> > Fox Mulder wrote:
> > > ... Tr...@Beauty.Com says...
> > > > Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
> > > >
> > > > How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
> > > nothing I can do to change that
> > You would seem to be concurring with the skeptical position that belief
> > in astrology is a matter of pure faith, as there is nothing objectively
> > provable about it. True?
> was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
> "sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
Not sure that helps: "Sorry if you won't share in [belief in astrology],
but there's nothing I can do to change that."
> If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
> understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
> a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
> for themselves.
I've checked quite a bit about what's been discovered about astrology
through objective testing, and have a pretty fair understanding of the
physical forces that "connect the cosmos," and a pretty fair
understanding of human nature. Given all that, "Truth's" question is
VERY reasonable; I can't understand how anyone with similar knowledge
could put much stock in an ancient superstition like astrology.
> All they'd have to do is buy an ephemeris (they cost around $20.00) get a
You're being ripped off. Check the popular astronomy magazines
(Astronomy or Sky & Telescope).
> print out of their natal chart (I'm sure that someone would do it--I'd
> even do it for you-takes about 20 seconds to do it) and just start to pay
> attention to what's going on in their life and check the transits in
> effect (you need to look at the present situation "up there" starting a
> little before the actual aspect is exact--how long before depends on the
> planet involved--). Just watch ONE planet's transit...Saturn or Mercury
> to start (Mercury moves fast). After a year, sit there and decide for
> yourself if there is any odd coincidence between the aspects the
> transiting planets are making to your natal placements. That's all it
> would take.
Far too easy to read into that a pattern where you expect to find one.
What would be a slight improvement would be to keep a diary of important
happenings and emotional states throughout the year, WITHOUT knowing
what transits are going on relative to your chart, and review them both
at the end of the year to see if things match up as predicted. Don't
forget to make note of all those transits when nothing happened in your
life, or all those times something big went down and nothing transitted.
> Do the same for friends...(you'll get more information that
> way-won't have to wait so long to start forming an opinion). You're not
> "brainwashing" yourself...if something happens it happens...Don't even
> look BEFORE, just wait and when something happens in your life that you
> "notice" go backwards and check the ephemeris...that's how I started, by
> looking backwards...no self delusion there, after a while you start
> looking at what else was going on at the time and then you start looking
> at what's coming up and paying attention to your life (just to kind of
> "check") *G* Then you come to the realization that, ummm, something's
> going on here...
>
> You'll start to detect patterns, periods of time when your life runs
> smoothly and periods when it's better to stay in bed *G*
You can "detect patterns" in a bowl of corn flakes. The important
question is whether they are more that coincidence, and whether the same
"patterns" apply to anyone else. You haven't been clear at all about
what you expect me to find, which suggests that you're expecting me to
simply mine the data for any "pattern" that might turn up, no matter how
grossly it might differ from those you think you see in your own
chart/ephemeris.
> Do you think
> that the general acceptance of attitudes such as "when you're hot you're
> hot; when you're not, you're not" and "everything runs in cycles" came
> about because the phrase was particularly catchy?
What do human psychological "cycles" have to do with planetary cycles?
Human society is a complex, chaotic system that changes on an individual
basis, and therefore an interactive basis with everyone else, on a
day-to-day or even at times minute-to-minute basis, whereas the planets
maintaing highly predictable orbits for aeons (becoming chaotic on a
_very_ long time scale, millions of years).
> Einstein at one time,
You're kidding, not "Einstein" again.
> (during a visit with Prime Minister Nehru) took out a piece of paper
> and wrote a list: on one side, dates; on the other side a number of
> events (this was related to the life of Gandhi). He showed the parallel
> evolution of the "bomb" and Gandhi's satyagraha methods/accomplishments.
> Another coincidence in life.
Wow, astounding, amazing! Coincidences NEVER happen. You're aparently
unaware of the Law of Large Numbers.
> Another example of the utilization of
> free will and innate interests. Both men changed the world, both in the
> same time frame, both with the same movement of planets occurring "up
> there".
What is missing is any indication at all that the "movement of planets
...'up there'" were in any manner useful in fortelling either sequence
of events.
...
> All these arguments presented by "skeptics" are arguments in theory.
Theory that proves out, however, which is more than you can say for
yours.
> They argue the theory of astrology, except for those that just want to
> irritate, confuse and disrupt the newsgroup for whatever pathetic reason
> they have. Well the "theory" that a brahma bull is made up of little
> invisible particles is a little wierd too isn't it--particularly when
> he's got his head down and he's looking at you like you're dinner. I
> don't really want to hear scientific proof for the existence of atoms
> from any skeptics...I said the THEORY is wierd, and it still is.
Thanks for explaining the depth of your ignorance.
> Part of the problem I think is that the astrologers who post here are
> very advanced in their knowledge of the subject, and until you've
> investigated the more mundane correlations it's hard to accept the
> psychological connections. But trust me, when transiting Saturn is
> square or opposition your natal Uranus, something is going to happen.
What? Wedding or divorce? Birth or death? Injury or recovery? Rags or
riches? New career or laid off? Start building a new house or see an old
one destroyed in fire? Lose a favorite pencil or buy a new hat? Is
"anything" happening good enough for you?
> For a long time I accepted the mundane and was TOTALLY negative as to
> the psychological...that too made itself known to me *G*
>
> Then you come to a point where you realize that rather than an ideology
> that implies kind of a "rat in a maze" scenario, astrology is a key to
> a greater depth of understanding of this whole universe and our part in
> it. I want to understand, I don't know why, but I do. It gives me a
> feeling of exhilaration when something in my brain finally "gets it"...
That sounds rather like a religious experience.
> BTW, what's the mechanism of action of "understanding"? But we do
> "understand" don't we? And we do learn don't we...how???? There's not
> even a theory.
Rather chaotic, isn't it? The human mind, I mean. How a planet 200
million miles away can have any connection to today's firings of a few
trillion synapses in one person's brain, beyond this sort of direct
attention, that is, is quite an extraordinary thing to suggest.
The universe is probably far more fascinating than you realize, just
looking at the _real_ connections between things without having to
imagine mystical ones.
> Jim, get the ephemeris - the whole universe is out there *G*
I am quite in tune with the universe that's "out there," thank you. It
does its thing on its timetable of millions and billions of years, and I
do my thing from day to day and year to year.
Jim
Sherilyn
In article <MPG.ea83309b...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>> > understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>> > a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>> > for themselves.
>>
>> unrealistic expectation-been there done that. They are spin doctors with
>> agendas.
>
Now that's "spin" if ever there was any. Visit my papers FAQ and point
out the "spin" in that.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
Ann Shermann
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 03:32:05 GMT, Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:29:18 GMT, a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>But, of course, since you and Brant share a common overriding theme in
>>your participation on alt.astrology -- intentional deception of your
>>fellow human beings.
>
>Posted by one who actually stated in this very newsgroup that make-
>money-fast and pyramid schemes are perfectly legal according to the
>US Postal Service.
>
False and deceptive (surprise, surprise). But of course, posted by
one who has no name.
What I posted was that the U.S. Postal Service at the number I
furnished to you said the solicitation, i.e. chain letter, had to come
through the US mails before they considered it postal fraud. And they
asked that the envelope be kept to prove that the mails had been used
to solicit.
Ann Shermann
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:05:33 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <MPG.ea80295a...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
>Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>>In article <eEPoAMBX$iP0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
>...
>>> >
>>> >If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
>>> >understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>>> >a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>>> >for themselves.
>>> ...
>>> Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
>>> the astrology papers FAQ:
>>>
>>> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
>>
>>Don't start playing your manipulative games, I'm not posting any answer
>>or response to this thread (so cleverly renamed) other than what is right
>>here.
>[rant snipped]
>
>Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
>there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
>astrology.
There is not much "serious" in these studies. A few legitimate
efforts but by and large it is like asking a paleontologist to perform
a heart transplant. Please post the name of any one of these
"scientist" authors who can construct and delineate a natal chart in
detail.
Fox's points vis-a-vis your spam were were on all-fours. Always snip
that for which you have no answer -- and duly noted.
Ann
(who doesn't need sig files to legitimize her presence in
alt.astrology)
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/)
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:29:18 GMT, a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>But, of course, since you and Brant share a common overriding theme in
>>your participation on alt.astrology -- intentional deception of your
>>fellow human beings.
>
>Posted by one who actually stated in this very newsgroup that make-
>money-fast and pyramid schemes are perfectly legal according to the
>US Postal Service.
>
>TRUTH
>
pete comments: Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussien post used the same
kind of truth as "truth" posts here. Anything that will hide the
truth - for this kind of anti astro clone fears the truth. Fears
what would happen to their tax trough welfare check if the public
ever finds out the truth about astrology - that it is actually
alive and well up in the sky.
Pete
Pete
Satori
<wistful sigh> I loved reading your post here Mulder. You have said so
much in just one small, simple letter. <smile>
Oh yeah Mulder, the truth is out there....somewhere.
Satori!
sat...@comwerx.net
Lift is a gift! Have fun with it!!! :)
Fox Mulder wrote in message ...
>In article <61jrv5$8...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com says...
>> Fox Mulder wrote:
>> > ... Tr...@Beauty.Com says...
Ann Shermann
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:08:44 -0600, Jim Rogers <jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com>
wrote:
>Ann Shermann wrote:
>
>> ...[snip stuff about "kooks"]...
>> Edmond, OTOH, is an astrologer who should be able
>> to post in alt.astrology without the continuous sabotage of Sherilyn.
>>...
>
>When are you going to realize that "being an astrologer" is not the
>entrance criterion for posting on this NG? When Ed spams, Ed's posts
>rightfully get sent down the drain, and if he keeps it up, his account
>goes along with it. It doesn't matter that he's "an astrologer" if he
>abuses usenet like that.
Posting the FAQ of the NG is an abuse? Would it be an abuse if YOUR
posts were not contrary to the FAQ?
> On the other hand, non-astrologers discussing
>astrology are perfectly "on topic," even when expressing opinions or
>asking questions about astrology that you or other astrologers don't
>personally like. The charter of the NG, as far as there is one, is
>"discussion about serious astrology," _NOT_ "discussion among serious
>astrologers."
>
>Jim
Unfortunately you have yet to engage in discussions of "serious
astrology" primarily because of lack or knowledge, but also because of
lack of integrity.
Please repost one message by either Sherilyn or Rick Ellis which is
about "serious astrology." One each will do. Can't do it, can you?
Why not? Because their message have yet to be about "serious
astrology."
Posting of the FAQ's of NG's is EXACTLY what NG's need so that the
purpose of the NG is readily available to all participants,
particularly as reminders of the appropriate topics for discussions.
Ignoring said FAQ's, making a federal case of posting the FAQ's,
calling it spam, complaining about the posting of the FAQ to the ISP
of the one posting the FAQ to the point of his losing his account,
continuing to use band-width to harp on the matter in post after post
after post in messages which would embarass an ethical 16-year old is
is illustrative of several things:
a) Abrogation of the FAQ of alt. astrology is and has been exactly
your and your brethren's intent;
b) Abrogation of the "charter" continues as your intent since you and
your brethren appear incapable of discussing "serious astrology"
because of lack of knowledge or lack of integrity;
b) SPAM should be redefined to EXclude the posting of FAQ's in any
NG;
c) Intent by you and your brethren of disrupting the astrological
postings in this NG by using the available band-width for extraneous
matters;
d) Lack of confidence that your arguments against astrology can stand
on their own without underhanded methodology;
e) Fear of a world view which you cannot comprehend and must
persecute by any means available without regard to integrity, honor,
or respect for others;
f) Fear that your own abiility to discern the truth is inadequate;
g) Lack of respect for others (you gotta have it for yourself before
you can allow it for others) to discern their own truth, since you
doubt your own ability to discern truth;
h) Problematical control issues for you and your brethren which
cannot permit unhampered discussion of topics you deem threatening yet
to which you remain ignorant (presumably you might get contaminated by
knowledge);
i) Demonstration by adults behaving like scared little children who
must persecute the prominent name which only demonstrates your own
fear and belief in your own admitted inadequacies to meet the
challenges presented by the prominent name; and
j) By definition an astrologer belongs in alt.astrology just like an
astrolonomer belongs in sci.astro. A cynic in alt.astrology is as
dispensible to the NG purposes and intent as is someone who claims the
moon landing was staged in a hanger is dispensible to sci.astro.
I could go on, but surely you get my drift even if you continue to
refuse to put your birth data to the test to confirm or dispell your
supposed "convictions."
Of course, if you had the integrity necessary to prove your point, you
would be posting complaints to Sherilyn's ISP since Sherilyn has
posted no less than 7 direct violations of the charter of
alt.astrology in the last 48 hours. The charter is about "serious
astrology" and yet I have seen no complaints by you or your brethren
about Sherilyn's "guessing-school-of-astrology." Is that a non-issue
with you since Sherilyn shares your disregard for others?? Certainly
Sherilyn is more ignorant than you of astrology, but I don't see you
harrassing her like you do Edmond. Why not, Jim? Why not?
If you are going to be a netcop be a THOROUGH netcop or stand down
clutching your hypocrisy.
Ann
Satori
OoOOoOOo...someone here is having a little tantrum huh?
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <61ki82$g...@electra.saaf.se>...
Tr...@beauty.com
>Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:29:18 GMT, a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>But, of course, since you and Brant share a common overriding theme in
>>>your participation on alt.astrology -- intentional deception of your
>>>fellow human beings.
>>
>>Posted by one who actually stated in this very newsgroup that make-
>>money-fast and pyramid schemes are perfectly legal according to the
>>US Postal Service.
>>
>>TRUTH
>>
>pete comments: Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussien post used the same
>kind of truth as "truth" posts here.
Godwin's Law invoked - you just ended any wisp of a chance you
might have had of contributing to this discussion.
Sherilyn
In article <343ef042...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
<a...@mexia.com> writes
>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:05:33 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <MPG.ea80295a...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
>>Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>>>In article <eEPoAMBX$iP0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
>>...
>>>> >
>>>> >understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>>>> >a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>>>> >for themselves.
>>>> Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
>>>> the astrology papers FAQ:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
>>>
>>>Don't start playing your manipulative games, I'm not posting any answer
>>>or response to this thread (so cleverly renamed) other than what is right
>>>here.
>>[rant snipped]
>>
>>Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
>>there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
>>astrology.
>
>There is not much "serious" in these studies. A few legitimate
>efforts but by and large it is like asking a paleontologist to perform
>a heart transplant. Please post the name of any one of these
>"scientist" authors who can construct and delineate a natal chart in
>detail.
Straw man argument noted. The scientific studies exist and you cannot
refute them by saying they were done by scientists, and not astrologers.
>
>Fox's points vis-a-vis your spam were were on all-fours. Always snip
>that for which you have no answer -- and duly noted.
As I have not spammed, the "points" were nothing more than an irrelevant
rant.
Ross Woodward
a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:08:44 -0600, Jim Rogers <jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com>
>wrote:
>>Ann Shermann wrote:
>>
>>> ...[snip stuff about "kooks"]...
>>> Edmond, OTOH, is an astrologer who should be able
>>> to post in alt.astrology without the continuous sabotage of Sherilyn.
Eddy CLAIMS to be a astrologer, that is all. Anyone can claim to be a
astrologer, there is no license needed, all you have to do is find
silly people to believe in you. As astrology is a joke all therefore
all must be jokers. Dont forget, alt astrology was set up as a joke to
see how many silly people could be sucked in to it.
>>>...
>>
>>When are you going to realize that "being an astrologer" is not the
>>entrance criterion for posting on this NG? When Ed spams, Ed's posts
>>rightfully get sent down the drain, and if he keeps it up, his account
>>goes along with it. It doesn't matter that he's "an astrologer" if he
>>abuses usenet like that.
>Posting the FAQ of the NG is an abuse? Would it be an abuse if YOUR
>posts were not contrary to the FAQ?
FAQ's are not the law. Anyone can make up a faq.
Official Astrology FAQ
==================
1/ Astrology is a joke.
2/ The only true method of Astrology is the Toad method
3/ The influence is male. if it is not male then it is female If
it is not female then it is not not.
>> On the other hand, non-astrologers discussing
>>astrology are perfectly "on topic," even when expressing opinions or
>>asking questions about astrology that you or other astrologers don't
>>personally like. The charter of the NG, as far as there is one, is
>>"discussion about serious astrology," _NOT_ "discussion among serious
>>astrologers."
>>
>>Jim
>Unfortunately you have yet to engage in discussions of "serious
>astrology" primarily because of lack or knowledge, but also because of
>lack of integrity.
What is "serious astrology"? All astrology is a joke, with no
relevence to reality.
>Please repost one message by either Sherilyn or Rick Ellis which is
>about "serious astrology." One each will do. Can't do it, can you?
>Why not? Because their message have yet to be about "serious
>astrology."
No message can be about "serious astrology"
>Posting of the FAQ's of NG's is EXACTLY what NG's need so that the
>purpose of the NG is readily available to all participants,
>particularly as reminders of the appropriate topics for discussions.
>Ignoring said FAQ's, making a federal case of posting the FAQ's,
>calling it spam, complaining about the posting of the FAQ to the ISP
>of the one posting the FAQ to the point of his losing his account,
>continuing to use band-width to harp on the matter in post after post
>after post in messages which would embarass an ethical 16-year old is
>is illustrative of several things:
If the one who lost his account didnt SPAM, he wouldnt have lost it.
>a) Abrogation of the FAQ of alt. astrology is and has been exactly
>your and your brethren's intent;
>b) Abrogation of the "charter" continues as your intent since you and
>your brethren appear incapable of discussing "serious astrology"
>because of lack of knowledge or lack of integrity;
There is no such thing as "serious astrology", no one who believes it
has any knowledge or integrity.
>b) SPAM should be redefined to EXclude the posting of FAQ's in any
>NG;
>c) Intent by you and your brethren of disrupting the astrological
>postings in this NG by using the available band-width for extraneous
>matters;
When astrology is discussed, nothing is extraneous
>d) Lack of confidence that your arguments against astrology can stand
>on their own without underhanded methodology;
Astrology can not stand on its own
>e) Fear of a world view which you cannot comprehend and must
>persecute by any means available without regard to integrity, honor,
>or respect for others;
What has Integrity got to do with astrology?
>f) Fear that your own abiility to discern the truth is inadequate;
Astrology has nothing to do with truth.
>g) Lack of respect for others (you gotta have it for yourself before
>you can allow it for others) to discern their own truth, since you
>doubt your own ability to discern truth;
Astrology has no truth
>h) Problematical control issues for you and your brethren which
>cannot permit unhampered discussion of topics you deem threatening yet
>to which you remain ignorant (presumably you might get contaminated by
>knowledge);
How can anyone be ignorant of Astrology? Everyone just makes anything
up as they go along. There is nothing that cannot be included in
Astrology.
>i) Demonstration by adults behaving like scared little children who
>must persecute the prominent name which only demonstrates your own
>fear and belief in your own admitted inadequacies to meet the
>challenges presented by the prominent name; and
Adults do not believe in astrology
>j) By definition an astrologer belongs in alt.astrology just like an
>astrolonomer belongs in sci.astro. A cynic in alt.astrology is as
>dispensible to the NG purposes and intent as is someone who claims the
>moon landing was staged in a hanger is dispensible to sci.astro.
Problem is, an "astrolonomer" doesnt belong in sci.astro
Astrolnomer = The study of sex between mice and whales.
>I could go on, but surely you get my drift even if you continue to
>refuse to put your birth data to the test to confirm or dispell your
>supposed "convictions."
You do go on.
>Of course, if you had the integrity necessary to prove your point, you
>would be posting complaints to Sherilyn's ISP since Sherilyn has
>posted no less than 7 direct violations of the charter of
>alt.astrology in the last 48 hours. The charter is about "serious
>astrology" and yet I have seen no complaints by you or your brethren
>about Sherilyn's "guessing-school-of-astrology." Is that a non-issue
>with you since Sherilyn shares your disregard for others?? Certainly
>Sherilyn is more ignorant than you of astrology, but I don't see you
>harrassing her like you do Edmond. Why not, Jim? Why not?
Once again, there is no such thing as "serious astrology", and all
astrology is made up as you go along. No one is ignorant of astrology.
>If you are going to be a netcop be a THOROUGH netcop or stand down
>clutching your hypocrisy.
You have to be carefull clutching your hypocrisy
>Ann
Why dont astrologers explain the Farthing - Nexus point, or the
PhilageChook interaction with worms???
Ross
Zoe Slade
In article <D9922CC151ABE08B.D3C8C7AA8E778BA4.A4B6E41A841C9986@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, Tr...@Beauty.Com writes
>Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
>
>
How can any sane person believe in God/Allah etc... Or reincarnation or
any other belief, including mainstream science wich still has alot
things it can't explain. And, whether it will be able to explain them in
the future or not, right now alot of it is still superstitious belief,
superstitious belief being anything that one believes in without being
able to understand it.
BTW what *exactly* is Truth?
Ciao, baby.
Zozzie.
"Blame it on a simple twist of fate."
Ann Shermann
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:40:46 -0600, Jim Rogers <jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com>
wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> Fox Mulder wrote:
>
>> > That's not what I meant at all...I thought about it after I posted and
>> > was wondering if it would be mis-interpreted. What I meant to say was
>> > "sorry you WON'T share in it...and blah blah blah"
>
>> > If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
>> > understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>> > a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>> > for themselves.
>
>> You are asking them to be objective, unbiased and scientific. This is an
>> unrealistic expectation-been there done that.
>
>I must have missed the part where Fox was asking us to be "objective,
>unbiased, and scientific." As far as I could see, Fox was making an
>appeal to personal familiarity, which offers no room for objective
>review by others. I am, myself, trying my best to preserve an
>"objective, unbiased, and scientific" mindset in my own response.
>
Yet, before even observing in your own life the transit of Mercury or
Saturn your admit defeat. Why is that? Fear that you might <gasp>
confirm the symbolism? And then have to investigate further? Is that
something like saying you are afraid to hit the ball so you can't
possily be in the starting lineup, or what?
>> They are spin doctors with
>> agendas.
>
>Sure, trust Ed's inexplicable declarations. Much better than attempting
>logic.
>
>Jim
So show us the logic of someone who spends hours posting on
alt.astrology yet find excuses not to test all postulates presented to
him. Show us how that is "logical."
Ann
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/)
Pete comments: this post is in reply to a cross post from
alt.skeptic to alt.astrology. Note, alt.astrology is now
under very serious attack from a group that considers themselves
to be god's censors of the net.
If you take the time to look up the names associated with what
ever it is that is callling itself sherilyn on DeJa News,
(start with the email address of sherilyn), you will find
evidence of a conspiracy to overwhelm a targeted usenet
in order to destroy it. The method is to post as much and
as often as possible, to the point where the bandwidth of
the targetted news net is almost pure garbage posts.
This in turn discourages the bonifide used of the net being
attacked for posting at all. And this is what is now
taking place on alt.astrology.
I don't have any solutions to this kind of attack. One of
the great assests of the internet is the lack of any kind
of official censorship. However, this same freedom is apparently
taken as a licenses by these religious bigots represeneted by
Sherilyn to destroy the very freedom of speech that allows them
to post here with such foul motives.
So, one thing that may help, just don't post an answer to these
deliberate religious bigot attacks on alt.astorlogy. If you must
answer, figure out another way.
Regards, Pete
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[kooks snipped :) ]
>I generally do not follow Ann Sherman's postings, and many of them do
>not make it to my server before the follow-ups. However.
>
>In article <61nvgd$acn$1...@loomi.telstra.net>, Ross Woodward
><ro...@eagles.bbs.net.au> writes
>>a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Posting the FAQ of the NG is an abuse?
>
>Posting _anything_ about eighty times in forty-five days runs up a
>Breidbart Index of eighty. This is four times the limit for the
>definition of cancelable EMP (spam). The evidence is contained in two
>emails archived at
> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/
>
>and containing the message-id of more than eighty copies of the FAQ that
>Edmond made in the space of forty-five days. That's TWO copies of a
>roughly forty-line quote from the FAQ posted per day over a period of
>forty-five days. That's without counting the weekend when archimeden
>(who I have very good reason to suspect was Edmond also) went apeshit
>and posted, according to my count, twenty-five copies of the same
>section in one day. After that, I stopped counting and emailed an abuse
>report to AOL, who responded promptly.
>
>[Ann]
>> Would it be an abuse if YOUR
>>>posts were not contrary to the FAQ?
>
>Spamming is spamming. The FAQ is contrary to the newsgroup charter.
>...
>>
>>>> On the other hand, non-astrologers discussing
>>>>astrology are perfectly "on topic," even when expressing opinions or
>>>>asking questions about astrology that you or other astrologers don't
>>>>personally like. The charter of the NG, as far as there is one, is
>>>>"discussion about serious astrology," _NOT_ "discussion among serious
>>>>astrologers."
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>
>>>Unfortunately you have yet to engage in discussions of "serious
>>>astrology" primarily because of lack or knowledge, but also because of
>>>lack of integrity.
>...
>>>Please repost one message by either Sherilyn or Rick Ellis which is
>>>about "serious astrology." One each will do. Can't do it, can you?
>>>Why not? Because their message have yet to be about "serious
>>>astrology."
>
>The following were my posts on the subject of serious astrology up to
>early September.
>
>Message-ID: <m1P2M0Aj...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <Ikst4cAq...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <eEEowCAQsS1zEw$P...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <M9q8eFA6$LB0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <zTZTlxB1...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <yGBDg7AX...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <ahF5piEE...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <JX9dkkFo...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <dR34FqGA...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <LtY96tI$yJC0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <7zdRtQAr...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <o6qFfVE3...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <0Roy1lA4...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <j2UH8SAL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <iYEn3qBJ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <kYkm3uBJ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <htkbkLAt...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <21UeiLDt...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <f4JEx8DG...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <FpnSVDE$6FE0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <BZlT5HE0$FE0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <ira7FAFL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <$0MMiVFS...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <FvkykLGy...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <g06LCoGL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <yAYPvcHA...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <9wtMzlHX...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <7gKNHoHK...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <JexNmPAC...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <5J$xD8A7E...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <EZg+3rBG...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <npb2LBCp...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <umDEIPCI$wE0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <eHEYweCW...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <gHjXA$CK9xE...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Message-ID: <M0ks8GDV...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>
>After that, I stopped counting, but they have continued.
>
>>
>>>Posting of the FAQ's of NG's is EXACTLY what NG's need so that the
>>>purpose of the NG is readily available to all participants,
>
>I have placed a URL for the posting FAQ for a.a, which contains only
>information which I have checked carefully and is open to revision, in
>my sig. I have submitted the URL to the news.announce moderators for
>cross-posting to that newsgroup. The charter of the newsgroup is also
>available through a URL I have in my sig, so the purpose of the
>newsgroup is plain:
> "Discussion on serious astrology/tarot etc."
>
>...
>>>continuing to use band-width to harp on the matter in post after post
>>>after post in messages which would embarass an ethical 16-year old is
>>>is illustrative of several things:
>
>A response to a person who continued to claim, in the face of the
>evidence, that he was not kicked off for spamming? Is it beyond the
>capacity of an ethical 16-year-old to see that Edmond is an egregious
>liar?
>
>>If the one who lost his account didnt SPAM, he wouldnt have lost it.
>>
>>>a) Abrogation of the FAQ of alt. astrology is and has been exactly
>>>your and your brethren's intent;
>
>Yes, the FAQ that was posted was inaccurate and contrary to the
>newsgroup charter. It has not been maintained since 1995.
>>
>>>b) Abrogation of the "charter" continues as your intent since you and
>>>your brethren appear incapable of discussing "serious astrology"
>>>because of lack of knowledge or lack of integrity;
>
>See list of message-ids above.
>...
>>>b) SPAM should be redefined to EXclude the posting of FAQ's in any
>>>NG;
>
>Email this suggestion to Tim Skirvin and see how it flies.
>
>>
>>>c) Intent by you and your brethren of disrupting the astrological
>>>postings in this NG by using the available band-width for extraneous
>>>matters;
>
>We had to sort out the question about whether we had a right to post
>here. The charter indicates that we do.
>
>>When astrology is discussed, nothing is extraneous
>
>[most of rest snipped]
>>
>>>i) Demonstration by adults behaving like scared little children who
>>>must persecute the prominent name which only demonstrates your own
>>>fear and belief in your own admitted inadequacies to meet the
>>>challenges presented by the prominent name;
>
>I think that describes the attempt to exclude skeptical viewpoints from
>a.a quite well by means of projection--fear and belief in own
>inadequacies. You are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of
>alt.astrology as an unmmoderated public newsgroup where anybody can post
>opinions based on the scientific investigation of astrology.
> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
Tr...@beauty.com
>In article <D9922CC151ABE08B.D3C8C7AA8E778BA4.A4B6E41A841C9986@library-
>proxy.airnews.net>, Tr...@Beauty.Com writes
>>Now that I've answered your question, kindly answer mine:
>>
>>How can any sane human being believe in astrology?
>>
>>TRUTH
>
>How can any sane person believe in God/Allah etc...
And, God, Allah, etc. has exactly what to do with a con game
like astrology?
>Or reincarnation or
>any other belief, including mainstream science wich still has alot
>things it can't explain.
Your software provider has evidently failed to explain many things
about your spell checker (cheap shot, but irresistable).
There are many things that science, _real_ science, is unable to
explain. That means only that we simply do not know all the
answers yet. However, to equate the efforts of reputable scientists
throughout history with the gobbledygook of the 'professional
astrologer' is disingenuous. And, to make the claim as you apparently
did in your post that there is some sort of intellectual equivalency
between real science and astrology because science 'still has alot
things it can't explain. ' (sic) is dishonest.
>And, whether it will be able to explain them in
>the future or not, right now alot of it is still superstitious belief,
>superstitious belief being anything that one believes in without being
>able to understand it.
Apples and oranges comparison. Are you asserting that astrology
is a religion?
>
>BTW what *exactly* is Truth?
Truth is where you find it. I find it in the laboratory, in nature,
and with my family.
>Ciao, baby.
Zdrasvuitche,
Sherilyn
In article <34401cc8...@news.c-zone.net>, "\"http://www.c-
zone.net/sidereal/" <peteja...@c-zone.net> writes
...
>
>If you take the time to look up the names associated with what
>ever it is that is callling itself sherilyn on DeJa News,
>(start with the email address of sherilyn), you will find
>evidence of a conspiracy to overwhelm a targeted usenet
>in order to destroy it. The method is to post as much and
>as often as possible, to the point where the bandwidth of
>the targetted news net is almost pure garbage posts.
Whatever anyone may think of the quality of my output ;0 I am confident
that there is no such evidence--quite the reverse.
...
>
>I don't have any solutions to this kind of attack.
When you indulged in your minispam operation on sci.skeptic, which
(surprisingly) was approaching _just the kind of attack you have
delineated above_ I killfiled you and was not bothered at all. You were
subsequently peterized and through the actions of c-zone.net you lost
the ability to post for a week or so, returning as a reformed character.
You may also be interested in the fact that just such an attack _was_
perpetrated on alt.religion.scientology, by scientologists wishing to
destroy the newsgroup.
Here's a sample post from me from that period, Notice the extensive
cross-posting to defeat the scientology cult's spam tactics, which were
for some reason restricted in scope if not in volume. The newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology.xenu was a newsgroup set up at my suggestion as
another means of circumventing the spam--hence the Sheri Convention. It
worked. Notice also the use of the word "xenu" in the subject line,
permitting several anti-spam techniques to be used to distinguish
genuine posts from the megabytes of spam that were being thrown at the
newsgroup. I placed the Sheri convention into my sig for that period,
reasoning that the slight extra bandwidth was justified if the
informational content made it through the megabytes of spam and enabled
people to communicate.
I'm quite proud of the actions of myself and my fellow a.r.s. posters.
We kept the _idea_ of the newsgroup alive at a time when the cult's
fast-mutating spam attack was outwitting Chris Lewis, JEM and other spam
cancelers.
Subject: Xenu: The reason for the scieno's spam
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1996/05/29
Message-Id: <PbJnr4DP...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,
alt.religion.scientology.xenu,
alt.censorship,
news.admin.net-abuse.misc
In article <4oe9ds$2...@tribune.concentric.net>, Whippersnapper
<Whip...@cris.com> writes
>
>
>Yes, oh my, actual material about Scientology. How awful.
Is this guy for real?
1000 posts a day is not "material about scientology," it's spam.
You know on the first day I did a quick search on posts. The
first one was an item on Narconon. I read it. Then I did a
search on the subject line and found fifteen more like it--not
just the same subject line but _identical content_.
That was just the first _day_. This was a deliberate attempt to
kill a newsgroup. That it failed abysmally is evidenced by the
reappearance of WhipperSnapper with his affected "what, is
something wrong?" air of innocence.
alt.religion.scientology posters: defeat the spam, adopt the
Sheri convention.
1) Cross-post to alt.religion.scientology.xenu and/or
talk.religion.misc
2) If you don't have alt.religion.scientology.xenu yet, ask for
it--it has been discussed in alt.config.
3) Include the word Xenu in your subject header.
4) If you use netscape, sort threads by author, so you can
easily select spam posts and mark them as read.
For information about what the cult of scientology is doing to
your right of free speech on the Net:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
No fancy graphics, no crap. Just solid information. More hits!
NOTS from Sherilyn's WWW page:
http://www.icon.fi/~marina/sherilyn/
"Unethical..aiding in distribution of NOTS" -Joshua Lowe.
Ann Shermann
>In article <343ef042...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
><a...@mexia.com> writes
>>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:05:33 +0100, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.ea80295a...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, Fox
>>>Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com> writes
>>>>In article <eEPoAMBX$iP0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk says...
>>>...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
>>>>> >understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
>>>>> >a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
>>>>> >for themselves.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Anyone who is interested in taking this excellent advice can start with
>>>>> the astrology papers FAQ:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/papers.txt
>>>>
>>>>Don't start playing your manipulative games, I'm not posting any answer
>>>>or response to this thread (so cleverly renamed) other than what is right
>>>>here.
>>>[rant snipped]
>>>
>>>Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
>>>there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
>>>astrology.
>>
>>There is not much "serious" in these studies. A few legitimate
>>efforts but by and large it is like asking a paleontologist to perform
>>a heart transplant. Please post the name of any one of these
>>"scientist" authors who can construct and delineate a natal chart in
>>detail.
>
>Straw man argument noted. The scientific studies exist and you cannot
>refute them by saying they were done by scientists, and not astrologers.
Straw man argument??? Asking the "expert" who is doing the study to
be an "expert" in the field s/he is studying is hardly a "straw man
argument." So, I ask again: please provide just one name of any of
these scientists who can construct and delineate a natal chart. Or to
put it another way, do you normally go to your butcher to find out why
your car won't start?
[balanced snipped]
Ann
Jim Rogers
Ann Shermann wrote:
>... Jim Rogers <jfr@~Remove~fc.hp.com> wrote:
[to Ann]:
> >When are you going to realize that "being an astrologer" is not the
> >entrance criterion for posting on this NG? When Ed spams, Ed's posts
> >rightfully get sent down the drain, and if he keeps it up, his account
> >goes along with it. It doesn't matter that he's "an astrologer" if he
> >abuses usenet like that.
> posts were not contrary to the FAQ?
Sherilyn already addressed the issue of Ed's spamming the FAQ. Yes, it's
an abuse when it is spammed. As to "contrary to the FAQ," I don't
recognize that FAQ as authoritative; no FAQ is authoritative, anywhere,
ever, for any purpose.
> > On the other hand, non-astrologers discussing
> >astrology are perfectly "on topic," even when expressing opinions or
> >asking questions about astrology that you or other astrologers don't
> >personally like. The charter of the NG, as far as there is one, is
> >"discussion about serious astrology," _NOT_ "discussion among serious
> >astrologers."
> Unfortunately you have yet to engage in discussions of "serious
> astrology" primarily because of lack or knowledge, but also because of
> lack of integrity.
Them's fightin' words, Ann! Just because you, personally, dislike what I
have to say in my discussions of serious astrology, doesn't make my
participation any less valid or lacking in integrity.
> Please repost one message by either Sherilyn or Rick Ellis which is
> about "serious astrology." One each will do. Can't do it, can you?
Not interested; you accused me, not them.
...
> Posting of the FAQ's of NG's is EXACTLY what NG's need so that the
> purpose of the NG is readily available to all participants,
> particularly as reminders of the appropriate topics for discussions.
Several times a day, every day, for several weeks? Who needs that?
> Ignoring said FAQ's, making a federal case of posting the FAQ's,
> calling it spam, complaining about the posting of the FAQ to the ISP
FTR, I didn't send e-mail to anyone's ISP regarding "spam" on usenet. I
did complain about Ed's shabby treatment of Rick Ellis, repeatedly
posting personal contact information (including mobile phone) and
calling on the usenet community to send "complaints" to his personal
assets, as I considered that a very nasty thing to do.
> of the one posting the FAQ to the point of his losing his account,
That's his problem; he earned it through great effort of his own, and
the only people cautioning him about such spam were skeptics. Why did
the astrologers here not care enough about the preservation of Ed's
account and AOL web site resources to warn him about what he was doing?
You talk big talk about "integrity," Ann, but I don't see it in your
actions.
> continuing to use band-width to harp on the matter in post after post
> after post in messages which would embarass an ethical 16-year old is
> is illustrative of several things:
>
> a) Abrogation of the FAQ of alt. astrology is and has been exactly
> your and your brethren's intent;
It has no authority.
> b) Abrogation of the "charter" continues as your intent since you and
> your brethren appear incapable of discussing "serious astrology"
> because of lack of knowledge or lack of integrity;
I have always been precisely "on charter," except for these boring
excursions that folks like you drag out about justifying posting.
> b) SPAM should be redefined to EXclude the posting of FAQ's in any
> NG;
About once a month is reqcognized as an appropriate frequency to post
such things; not several times a day for weeks on end. Furthermore, Ed
was not even posting the entire FAQ, just a few self-serving excerpts of
it to use as a bludgeon.
> c) Intent by you and your brethren of disrupting the astrological
> postings in this NG by using the available band-width for extraneous
> matters;
False.
> d) Lack of confidence that your arguments against astrology can stand
> on their own without underhanded methodology;
False; you tend not to respond with substantial replies to my arguments,
so they seem to be "standing on their own" just fine. What "underhanded
methodology" are you accusing me of, exactly?
> e) Fear of a world view which you cannot comprehend and must
> persecute by any means available without regard to integrity, honor,
> or respect for others;
Provide examples, please, or stop your scurrilous lies about my
character.
> f) Fear that your own abiility to discern the truth is inadequate;
False. I have no problem identifying falseness when evidence is
available.
> g) Lack of respect for others (you gotta have it for yourself before
> you can allow it for others) to discern their own truth, since you
> doubt your own ability to discern truth;
Stimulating critical thinking is my approach; you apparently don't care
for it. "Truth" is not a thing anyone can easily lay claim to. It is
obvious that in your world, one is only appropriately confident of their
ability to discern "truth" if they embrace astrology unquestioningly.
Elmer Gantry would be proud of you, Ann.
> h) Problematical control issues for you and your brethren which
> cannot permit unhampered discussion of topics you deem threatening yet
> to which you remain ignorant (presumably you might get contaminated by
> knowledge);
Why do you reserve for yourself the room to hamper skeptical discussion
of astrology? The only thing astrology "threatens" is the logical
thought processes of the general public, with appeals to ancient
superstitions.
> i) Demonstration by adults behaving like scared little children who
> must persecute the prominent name which only demonstrates your own
> fear and belief in your own admitted inadequacies to meet the
> challenges presented by the prominent name; and
You're describing Ed to a tee.
> j) By definition an astrologer belongs in alt.astrology just like an
> astrolonomer belongs in sci.astro. A cynic in alt.astrology is as
> dispensible to the NG purposes and intent as is someone who claims the
> moon landing was staged in a hanger is dispensible to sci.astro.
You're welcome to your opinion, but it dictates solely your own actions,
not mine.
> I could go on, but surely you get my drift even if you continue to
> refuse to put your birth data to the test to confirm or dispell your
> supposed "convictions."
I get your drift just fine; you're an astrological bigot.
> Of course, if you had the integrity necessary to prove your point, you
> would be posting complaints to Sherilyn's ISP since Sherilyn has
> posted no less than 7 direct violations of the charter of
> alt.astrology in the last 48 hours. The charter is about "serious
> astrology" and yet I have seen no complaints by you or your brethren
> about Sherilyn's "guessing-school-of-astrology."
That sounds like her "method." Why is it invalid? I see no reason to
dispense with it any more quickly than one might dispense with your
method. Where's the controlled studies demonstrating the superiority of
carefully casting a calculated natal chart over Sherilyn's "guessing
school" to identifying personality traits, compatibilities, life
challenges, etc?
> Is that a non-issue
> with you since Sherilyn shares your disregard for others?? Certainly
> Sherilyn is more ignorant than you of astrology, but I don't see you
> harrassing her like you do Edmond. Why not, Jim? Why not?
She's on-topic and polite, and not trying to censor any discussion.
Sherilyn's reason for participating has been open from the start, to
promote free discussion in a place where she saw control freaks trying
to squelch opinions they don't like, either with multiple complaints to
their ISPs, harrassment by posting personal information in the obvious
hopes that some lowlives would flood them with "complaints," or by
simply trying to shout them out with Big Lies, such as you're doing
here.
> If you are going to be a netcop be a THOROUGH netcop or stand down
> clutching your hypocrisy.
I'm no net cop, sorry. I very rarely complain to someone's ISP, and you
are not in position to dicate to me when I ought. If you have a problem
with Sherilyn's posting, YOU take it up, if you think you can articulate
it with specifics instead of the sorts of broad, fuzzy, generalized
character assassinations you seem to prefer to engage in.
Jim
Paul Rumelhart
Ann Shermann wrote in message <343ef042...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:05:33 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
>>there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
>>astrology.
>
>There is not much "serious" in these studies. A few legitimate
>efforts but by and large it is like asking a paleontologist to perform
>a heart transplant. Please post the name of any one of these
>"scientist" authors who can construct and delineate a natal chart in
>detail.
There is a whole slew of computer programs that will do it for you, using
whatever house system you like. As for the interpretations, well, that's
what the research is all about.
Are you convinced that these scientists are all trying to disprove astrology
with biased tests? Do you accuse any of them of ignoring data that would
prove astrological tenents? Of doctoring their results? Of faking data? I
ask because I am conducting just such research in my spare time and would
take it personally if it were my research that you were frivolously
ignoring. Wouldn't it be nice to *know* it works beyond any questions of
bias, self-delusion, etc?
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Schlyter
In article <344143ad...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Ann Shermann <a...@ann-astrology.com> wrote:
>> Straw man argument noted. The scientific studies exist and you cannot
>> refute them by saying they were done by scientists, and not astrologers.
>
> Straw man argument??? Asking the "expert" who is doing the study to
> be an "expert" in the field s/he is studying is hardly a "straw man
> argument." So, I ask again: please provide just one name of any of
Why should they need to know that? The scientists do what they're
experts on doing - in this case finding out whether the claims
by astrologers is true or not (it isn't....)
> Or to put it another way, do you normally go to your butcher to find
> out why your car won't start?
it's likely that the butcher drives to his work -- and then he'll have
to know how to drive. And to know how to drive, you must be able
to distinguish a car that starts from one that does not start - right?
Likewise the scientists can find out IF astrology works or not !!!!!!
Jim Rogers
Ann Shermann created some convenient reality:
> >> Fox Mulder wrote:
> >> > If you knew me, you'd know that I take nothing on faith...and I can't
> >> > understand how anyone can start posting on this newsgroup, claim to be
> >> > a skeptic, discount anything any astrologer says without first checking
> >> > for themselves.
> >> unrealistic expectation-been there done that.
> >I must have missed the part where Fox was asking us to be "objective,
> >unbiased, and scientific." As far as I could see, Fox was making an
> >appeal to personal familiarity, which offers no room for objective
> >review by others. I am, myself, trying my best to preserve an
> >"objective, unbiased, and scientific" mindset in my own response.
> Yet, before even observing in your own life the transit of Mercury or
> Saturn your admit defeat. Why is that? Fear that you might <gasp>
> confirm the symbolism? And then have to investigate further? Is that
> something like saying you are afraid to hit the ball so you can't
> possily be in the starting lineup, or what?
What in the blue blazes are you blithering about now? What is it that
I've supposedly "admitted defeat" about without examination, and when?
> >> They are spin doctors with
> >> agendas.
> >Sure, trust Ed's inexplicable declarations. Much better than attempting
> >logic.
> So show us the logic of someone who spends hours posting on
> alt.astrology yet find excuses not to test all postulates presented to
> him. Show us how that is "logical."
I've yet to see a postulate that's well constructed enough for me to
invest time to "test." Break a mirror, Ann, and tell us whether "bad
luck" ensues.
Jim
Paul Schlyter
In article <61tvqt$kdg$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
Astrologers, like Ann, who denies this do it to defend their religion
astrology. Their faith in astrology means so much to them that they
do their best to deny the facts.
Sherilyn
In article <61u4la$4...@electra.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
<pau...@electra.saaf.se> writes
...
>
>Likewise the scientists can find out IF astrology works or not !!!!!!
>
ones to ask about whether astrology works or not. ;)
Brant Watson
>Straw man argument??? Asking the "expert" who is doing the study to
>be an "expert" in the field s/he is studying is hardly a "straw man
>argument." So, I ask again: please provide just one name of any of
>these scientists who can construct and delineate a natal chart. Or to
>put it another way, do you normally go to your butcher to find out why
>your car won't start?
>
>[balanced snipped]
>
>Ann
Scientists don't try to explain why astrology doesn't work, just
that it *doesn't*. A butcher would be fairly qualified to judge
whether or not your car starts.
Brant
Sherilyn
In article <3443A4...@erols.com>, maberry <mab...@erols.com> writes
...
>Of course, your butcher could say "whether" your car starts or not...but
>that's NOT WHAT ANN SAID. Go back up there and READ WHAT SHE WROTE.
>There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between saying WHETHER your car won't start
>and WHY your car won't start. Do you get it it yet?
If the car don't start, it don't start. You can take it to the garage
and the mechanic can fiddle with it to try to make it start, but at the
end of the day it only takes a butcher to say whether the mechanic's
work actually produced a working car. Do you get it yet?
Marsha
Rick Ellis wrote:
>
> In article <3443DF58...@mindspring.com>,
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sherilyn already addressed the issue of Ed's spamming the FAQ. Yes,
> >> it's an abuse when it is spammed. As to "contrary to the FAQ," I don't
> >> recognize that FAQ as authoritative; no FAQ is authoritative,
> >> anywhere, ever, for any purpose.
>
>
> You don't know the difference between authority and purpose?
Sure.
> How does
> an FAQ not having authority to restrict postings in a newsgroup leave
> it without purpose?
OK, what's it's purpose then?
Marsha
Rick Ellis
>> Sherilyn already addressed the issue of Ed's spamming the FAQ. Yes,
>> it's an abuse when it is spammed. As to "contrary to the FAQ," I don't
>> recognize that FAQ as authoritative; no FAQ is authoritative,
>> anywhere, ever, for any purpose.
>So you're saying FAQs have no purpose.
You don't know the difference between authority and purpose? How does
maberry
school and learn how to read.
Of course, your butcher could say "whether" your car starts or not...but
that's NOT WHAT ANN SAID. Go back up there and READ WHAT SHE WROTE.
There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between saying WHETHER your car won't start
and WHY your car won't start. Do you get it it yet?
Your careless approach to reading and comprehension makes me wonder if
your approach to "Science" isn't careless as well. Remember, good
science is precise. But, with work, maybe you can improve.
peace
maberry
Ann Shermann
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:21:09 -0700, "Paul Rumelhart"
<pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>Ann Shermann wrote in message <343ef042...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:05:33 +0100, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
>>>Am I to take it you haven't yet read the papers FAQ? You seem to think
>>>there is something not quite "serious" about scientific studies of
>>>astrology.
>>
>>There is not much "serious" in these studies. A few legitimate
>>efforts but by and large it is like asking a paleontologist to perform
>>a heart transplant. Please post the name of any one of these
>>"scientist" authors who can construct and delineate a natal chart in
>>detail.
>
>There is a whole slew of computer programs that will do it for you, using
>whatever house system you like. As for the interpretations, well, that's
>what the research is all about.
>
>Are you convinced that these scientists are all trying to disprove astrology
>with biased tests? Do you accuse any of them of ignoring data that would
>prove astrological tenents? Of doctoring their results? Of faking data?
I am saying that unless these "scientists" KNOW astrology thoroughly,
they don't know what they are doing or what they are looking for or
at. I am saying further that if they are not using exact time and
place of birth in addition to date of birth, not only do they not know
what they are looking for or at, they have incomplete data for any
kind of research in the first place.
> I
>ask because I am conducting just such research in my spare time and would
>take it personally if it were my research that you were frivolously
>ignoring.
Can you construct and thoroughly delineate a natal chart? Do you
understand progressions and transits? Are you using complete birth
data (date, exact and place) in this "research"? If you cannot
answer "yes" to all three questions, then in all likelihood your
research will be meaningless. If OTOH, you can answer "yes" to all
three, then I would certainly be happy to see the nature of your
research.
> Wouldn't it be nice to *know* it works beyond any questions of
>bias, self-delusion, etc?
>
Paul, I have spent 25 years in study and observation of myself, but
primarily of others. Study and observation are the foundation of
knowledge. Therefore, I "'know' it works." If you have questions use
whatever methodology you deem necessary to answer those questions.
Just remember a pretty basic tenet of life: " No man's knowledge can
go beyond his experience." (John Locke)
Ann
Ann Shermann
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:22:21 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[kooks snipped :) ]
>I generally do not follow Ann Sherman's postings, and many of them do
>not make it to my server before the follow-ups. However.
>
>In article <61nvgd$acn$1...@loomi.telstra.net>, Ross Woodward
><ro...@eagles.bbs.net.au> writes
>>a...@mexia.com (Ann Shermann) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Posting the FAQ of the NG is an abuse?
>
>Posting _anything_ about eighty times in forty-five days runs up a
>Breidbart Index of eighty. This is four times the limit for the
>definition of cancelable EMP (spam). The evidence is contained in two
>emails archived at
> http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/spam/wollmann/
>
>and containing the message-id of more than eighty copies of the FAQ that
>Edmond made in the space of forty-five days. That's TWO copies of a
>roughly forty-line quote from the FAQ posted per day over a period of
>forty-five days. That's without counting the weekend when archimeden
>(who I have very good reason to suspect was Edmond also) went apeshit
>and posted, according to my count, twenty-five copies of the same
>section in one day. After that, I stopped counting and emailed an abuse
>report to AOL, who responded promptly.
>
>[Ann]
>> Would it be an abuse if YOUR
>>>posts were not contrary to the FAQ?
>
>Spamming is spamming.
And the 500 posts of yours which are not "discussion of serious
astrology/tarot" and thereby contrary to the charter are what, except
waste of band-width????
>The FAQ is contrary to the newsgroup charter.
>
Not so. The FAQ reiterates the charter inasmuch as this is a NG for
the discussion of "serious astrology/tarot." The FAQ merely amplifies
that statement and there is nothing "contrary" to the charter
contained in the FAQ.
>>
>>>> On the other hand, non-astrologers discussing
>>>>astrology are perfectly "on topic," even when expressing opinions or
>>>>asking questions about astrology that you or other astrologers don't
>>>>personally like. The charter of the NG, as far as there is one, is
>>>>"discussion about serious astrology," _NOT_ "discussion among serious
>>>>astrologers."
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>
>>>Unfortunately you have yet to engage in discussions of "serious
>>>astrology" primarily because of lack or knowledge, but also because of
>>>lack of integrity.
>...
>>>Please repost one message by either Sherilyn or Rick Ellis which is
>>>about "serious astrology." One each will do. Can't do it, can you?
>>>Why not? Because their message have yet to be about "serious
>>>astrology."
>
>The following were my posts on the subject of serious astrology up to
>early September.
You might consider these posts to be "on the subject of serious
astrology" but I doubt any thoughtful individual would consider these
to be "discussion of serious astrology." Just a few examples:
>Message-ID: <M9q8eFA6$LB0...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
"Are sun signs not astrology? Excuse my ignorance."
>Message-ID: <j2UH8SAL...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
"Abuse of personal data for unprofessional purposes noted."
>Message-ID: <kYkm3uBJ...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
> I
>don't know of any novices in any subject who have developed
>their own
>theories of a subject. So, apparently you're just an insincere,
>contradictory cynic then, right?
...
No, I was just lucky enough to hit on a really great theory of
astrology the first time. No theory of astrology has ever been
proven more accurate than mine, so I guess it must be the best.
>Message-ID: <f4JEx8DG...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
" Abuse of personal data for unprofessional purposes noted."
>Message-ID: <$0MMiVFS...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Re: Newbie Question
> She said that Mars in Taurus had to do with my
>interest in sex and that the bucket config makes me a real fiend.
>
>She moved away shortly thereafter and I lost track of her. Was she
>pulling my leg?
No, she obviously thought a lot of you and wanted to have sex with
you;
Assuming you didn't take the hint, I'm not surprised she lost
interest and went away.
...
> Please email
>me any replies since I don't follow this group.
...
Rather tactless request, don't you think? All I can say is you must
have a TERRIFIC body.
>Message-ID: <JexNmPAC...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>Dr. U.R. Gulbel of Harvard summed up the study by saying: "It's
>not only obvious now, but it's actually been scientifically
>PROVEN, that anyone who
>does believe in astrology is deluding him or herself, willingly
> or not."
Lazz, do you have a reference for this? I'm suspicious because
you didn't include even the vaguest reference to the name of the
study and the publication.
>
>After that, I stopped counting, but they have continued.
>
Yes, your posts have continued, many, many posts taking up loads of
bandwidth, but none of them have been "discussion of serious
astrology." Now in those Message ID's which I snipped there is one
reprint of an article by a zoologist and one link to another article
somewhere. There were also at least four questioning whether there
was a correlation between height and rising sign. And then, of course
there were a couple in defense of your "guessing is as good as it
gets" system of astrology. I didn't bother looking at the others
because same is same. All specious. None a "discussion of serious
astrology." Just more deception from you.
>>
>>>Posting of the FAQ's of NG's is EXACTLY what NG's need so that the
>>>purpose of the NG is readily available to all participants,
>
>I have placed a URL for the posting FAQ for a.a, which contains only
>information which I have checked carefully and is open to revision, in
>my sig. I have submitted the URL to the news.announce moderators for
>cross-posting to that newsgroup. The charter of the newsgroup is also
>available through a URL I have in my sig, so the purpose of the
>newsgroup is plain:
> "Discussion on serious astrology/tarot etc."
Too bad you don't know enough about astrology to engage in a
discussion, and have, in fact, dsdained even learning astrology. 500
posts in 60 days from an individual ignorant of the subject matter of
the NG.
>...
>>>continuing to use band-width to harp on the matter in post after post
>>>after post in messages which would embarass an ethical 16-year old is
>>>is illustrative of several things:
>
>A response to a person who continued to claim, in the face of the
>evidence, that he was not kicked off for spamming?
Is off-topic, particularly when it is post after post after post and
header after header after header. Edmond still posts on alt.astrology
and the majority of his posts are "discussion of serious astrology,"
whereas your posts are _never_ about serious astrology since you have
no knowledge of astrology and refuse to learn.
> Is it beyond the
>capacity of an ethical 16-year-old to see that Edmond is an egregious
>liar?
I think, Sherilyn, I have shined the light on _your lies and
deception_ time and again. How could perceived prevarication on
anyone else's part ever be a concern of yours? What is transparent is
the obsessional manner of your posting vis-a-vis Ed.
>
>>If the one who lost his account didnt SPAM, he wouldnt have lost it.
>>
>>>a) Abrogation of the FAQ of alt. astrology is and has been exactly
>>>your and your brethren's intent;
>
>Yes, the FAQ that was posted was inaccurate and contrary to the
>newsgroup charter. It has not been maintained since 1995.
The FAQ is NOT contrary to the charter. It is merely the logical
extension of the charter. Since you apparently has yet to grasp the
meaning of _any_ element of the charter, i.e. "discussion," "serious"
"astrology," your judgment vis-a-vis the charter is spurious at best.
>>
>>>b) Abrogation of the "charter" continues as your intent since you and
>>>your brethren appear incapable of discussing "serious astrology"
>>>because of lack of knowledge or lack of integrity;
>
>See list of message-ids above.
I did. My point stands undiminished.
>...
>>>b) SPAM should be redefined to EXclude the posting of FAQ's in any
>>>NG;
>
>Email this suggestion to Tim Skirvin and see how it flies.
>
>>
>>>c) Intent by you and your brethren of disrupting the astrological
>>>postings in this NG by using the available band-width for extraneous
>>>matters;
>
>We had to sort out the question about whether we had a right to post
>here. The charter indicates that we do.
The charter indicates "discussion of serious astrology." You have yet
to engage in "discussion of serious astrology" in any way, shape, form
or fashion. Therefore, your posts continue to be in violation of the
charter.
>
>>When astrology is discussed, nothing is extraneous
>
You have yet to discuss astrology, Sherilyn. Neither has Rick Ellis or
most of your other cynical buds. Look at the header again and tell me
that is about astrology.
>[most of rest snipped]
Gee whiz, I wonder why?
>>
>>>i) Demonstration by adults behaving like scared little children who
>>>must persecute the prominent name which only demonstrates your own
>>>fear and belief in your own admitted inadequacies to meet the
>>>challenges presented by the prominent name;
>
>I think that describes the attempt to exclude skeptical viewpoints from
>a.a quite well by means of projection--fear and belief in own
>inadequacies. You are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of
>alt.astrology as an unmmoderated public newsgroup where anybody can post
>opinions based on the scientific investigation of astrology.
Oh, please, get a grip and stop with the false propaganda. Paul
Schylter has been posting on this NG since its inception as has Fred
File since before I came on board. I am not "uncomfortable" with
their posts. At least they, unlike you and Rick and TB andf Lady
whoever, et al , attempt actual discussion. I have engaged both of
them and NOBODY has tried to run them off this NG (well, maybe Pete).
So far all of your multiple posts have YET to be a discussion of
astrology based on anything except your guessing game and negative
agenda. You have to know something about a topic in order to discuss
it. Obviously, you don't and don't.
What makes me "uncomfortable" is to watch a systematic effort at
censorship by you and your buds. When you take up bandwidth with
non-astrological posts (500 so far from just you in 60 days), the net
effect is censorship of the astrological posts. ISP's have only so
much capacity, as you well know. Blue Wolf's, for example only gets
about 10% of the messages on alt.astrology because of the growing
volume of the Internet. You well know this and yet you persist in
threads like this one, started by you in what is euphemistically
termed "a pissing contest." Off charter, irrelevant to the purposes
of the group, and an unabashed attempt to censor alt.astrology now
(but not originally) under the guize of "posting opinions based on
scientific investigation of astrology."
Reread the name of this thread which, like all of your threads, has
zippo to do with astrology and know that your obsessional behavior
confirms the efficacy of astrology inasmuch as the transits to
alt.astrology's natal chart describe this behavior to a tee. Just
take a look at that chart and you can see it for yourself. Oops, you
wouldn't know what you are looking at though, would you? Why don't
you take the chart to one of your "scientists" authors and see if they
can delineate it for you.
Ann
Jim Rogers
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Ann Shermann <a...@ann-astrology.com> wrote:
>...
> > Or to put it another way, do you normally go to your butcher to find
> > out why your car won't start?
> it's likely that the butcher drives to his work -- and then he'll have
> to know how to drive. And to know how to drive, you must be able
> to distinguish a car that starts from one that does not start - right?
Even if he doesn't drive but takes a cab, leaving the expertise at
driving to a cabbie, he can certainly serve as a sufficiently qualified
observer to distinguish whether the car starts. Likewise, scientists can
observe astrologers doing astrology and have the qualifications to
distinguish whether it's working or not.
Jim
Satori
Ann Shermann wrote in message <344366f3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Hey Ann, you know what I've noticed in the week I've been posting and
reading here?? I've noticed that these people, they cynics, who want to
stop the actual discussion of astrology have made a little system, aka the
morning croissant???, to further enable them from being banned by people
complaining of their rude posts. It seems they are trying really hard to
"cya" for themselves, so they can sit here and cause dissension among the
astrology community that is here.
Just my observations.
Satori!
Leta Rogers
Marsha wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Sherilyn already addressed the issue of Ed's spamming the FAQ. Yes,
> > it's an abuse when it is spammed. As to "contrary to the FAQ," I don't
> > recognize that FAQ as authoritative; no FAQ is authoritative,
> > anywhere, ever, for any purpose.
> So you're saying FAQs have no purpose.
FAQ's have a purpose, and that is as a repository for one or more POV's
common responses to "frequently asked questions." That purpose is merely
as a time-saver, and is not authoritative.
> And what is the purpose of cynics asking the same questions and making
> the same accusations and statements about astrology and astrologers over
> and over and over and over again?
Beats me. When I see one, maybe I'll ask him or her.
> > Several times a day, every day, for several weeks? Who needs that?
> Exactly. Who needs to read the same questions, accusations and
> statements about astrology and astrologers over and over and over and
> over again?
If certain questions don't interest you, then you're not being asked.
What point is there to taking up a crusade to stop such questions? There
are some nice old windmills near where I live that you can come and
joust with, if you wish.
> > FTR, I didn't send e-mail to anyone's ISP regarding "spam" on usenet.
> But you support those who did.
If "support" means that I didn't argue against them, I guess that's
true. I generally don't oppose others' efforts to reduce spam.
> > I have always been precisely "on charter," except for these boring
> > excursions that folks like you drag out about justifying posting.
> Anyone who has any critical thinking ability can recognize that the
> words "serious astrology" means discussion *on* the subject with
> knowledge of it not *of* the subject--discussing whether or not it's
> valid. So you and those who agree with you are only addressing the
> letter of the "law" not the spirit of the "law". Anal.
"Discussion" does not and never has implied "no dissent." I have
adequate "knowledge" of astrology to address the issues that I've
raised, and you've never shown otherwise.
> > just a few self-serving excerpts of
> > it to use as a bludgeon.
> Which is exactly what cynics do on alt.astrology.
Who among those you identify as "cynics" quotes a few self-serving
excerpts of a crusty, stale "FAQ" to use as a bludgeon? You're making no
sense here, Marsha.
> But just because
> there is no "official" "Budweiser Index" for keeping track of what they
> post,...
That's because original discussion is the very purpose of usenet; why
would anyone want to keep track of that for the purposes of labelling
"too much" of it "abuse"?
> > The only thing astrology "threatens" is the logical
> > thought processes of the general public, with appeals to ancient
> > superstitions.
> Aha, a true cynic after all, who has denied being cynical and calls
> himself a skeptic!? A cynic shows contempt, a skeptic is on a search
> for the truth.
Your definitions are flawed. I am a "true skeptic," and in addition, at
times, a cynic. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. "Aha"
yourself to your heart's content, it makes no difference to me.
> > She's on-topic and polite, and not trying to censor any discussion.
> > Sherilyn's reason for participating has been open from the start, to
> > promote free discussion in a place where she saw control freaks trying
> > to squelch opinions they don't like, either with multiple complaints
> > to their ISPs, harrassment by posting personal information in the
> > obvious hopes that some lowlives would flood them with "complaints,"
> > or by simply trying to shout them out with Big Lies, such as you're
> > doing here.
> Oh, please. When you try to insult people's intelligence by expecting
> them to believe this stuff, you are only showing your own
> underestimation of it and possibly your lack of it.
It's my perfectly honest opinion; sorry if you're too blinded by Ed's
brilliance to recognize it.
Jim
Satori
Hey Paul, if these people whom you say are really interested in astrology,
then they would seek out the different and various systems and learn for
themselves. You are only making a stronger point to the fact that they are
nothing more than cynics who want to cause strife in this pub all in the
name of prejudism.
Satori!
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <620r37$1...@electra.saaf.se>...
>In article <344366f3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Ann Shermann <a...@ann-astrology.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:21:09 -0700, "Paul Rumelhart"
><pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Are you convinced that these scientists are all trying to disprove
>>> astrology with biased tests? Do you accuse any of them of ignoring
>>> data that would prove astrological tenents? Of doctoring their
>>> results? Of faking data?
>
>> I am saying that unless these "scientists" KNOW astrology thoroughly,
>> they don't know what they are doing or what they are looking for or
>> at.
>
>Then you're wrong. They're looking for evidence in favor of
>astrological predictions. They don't care very much about HOW these
>predictions are made, only about their accuracy. It is possible to
>check the accuracy if the final result, without needing to know each
>and every detail of how that result is acheived.
>
>> I am saying further that if they are not using exact time and place
>> of birth in addition to date of birth, not only do they not know what
>> they are looking for or at, they have incomplete data for any kind of
>> research in the first place.
>
>This is not an issue here, since the critical reviewers of astrology
>accept this requirement.
>
>>> Wouldn't it be nice to *know* it works beyond any questions of
>>> bias, self-delusion, etc?
>>
>> Paul, I have spent 25 years in study and observation of myself, but
>> primarily of others. Study and observation are the foundation of
>> knowledge. Therefore, I "'know' it works."
>
>Can you also demonstrate that it indeed does work? For instance by
>issuing some predictions? Or by, during a blind test, distinguish
>chart interpretations based on correct natal data from those based on
>grossly erroneous natal data?
>
>Or are you satisfied to delude yourself into believing it works ?
>
>> If you have questions use whatever methodology you deem necessary to
>> answer those questions. Just remember a pretty basic tenet of life:
>> " No man's knowledge can go beyond his experience." (John Locke)
>
>Locke was horribly wrong here!
>
>Ever heard about co-operation? And verifying the result of others,
>and trusting them if they are trustworthy?
>
>Through co-operation, one can gain knowledge beyond one's own
>personal experience. This knowledge is of course based on the
>experience of others -- and the experience of all of mankind is so
>much larger than the experience of one single individual, isn't it?
>
>You are using the Internet. Why? You didn't build the net yourself,
>did you? So why use something that's beyond your own experience?
>Since you didn't build it, and since you certainly don't know every
>tiny detail of how it works, you can surely NOT trust it, can you?
><grin>
>
>If each and everyone of us would be required to "re-invent their own
>wheels" (i.e. to trust only their own experience), mankind would not
>have gotten very far....
Marsha
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Sherilyn already addressed the issue of Ed's spamming the FAQ. Yes,
> it's an abuse when it is spammed. As to "contrary to the FAQ," I don't
> recognize that FAQ as authoritative; no FAQ is authoritative,
> anywhere, ever, for any purpose.
So you're saying FAQs have no purpose.
And what is the purpose of cynics asking the same questions and making
the same accusations and statements about astrology and astrologers over
and over and over and over again?
....
> Several times a day, every day, for several weeks? Who needs that?
Exactly. Who needs to read the same questions, accusations and
statements about astrology and astrologers over and over and over and
over again?
> FTR, I didn't send e-mail to anyone's ISP regarding "spam" on usenet.
But you support those who did.
> I have always been precisely "on charter," except for these boring
> excursions that folks like you drag out about justifying posting.
Anyone who has any critical thinking ability can recognize that the
words "serious astrology" means discussion *on* the subject with
knowledge of it not *of* the subject--discussing whether or not it's
valid. So you and those who agree with you are only addressing the
letter of the "law" not the spirit of the "law". Anal.
....
> just a few self-serving excerpts of
> it to use as a bludgeon.
Which is exactly what cynics do on alt.astrology. But just because
there is no "official" "Budweiser Index" for keeping track of what they
post, they can continue to maliciously post the same things over and
over and over again. And someone who posts a FAQ only in response to
*some* of these posts supposedly *too often* gets their account taken
away from them. Makes absolutely no sense to me. If it does to anyone
else, they're either rationalizing or being persnickety.
> The only thing astrology "threatens" is the logical
> thought processes of the general public, with appeals to ancient
> superstitions.
Aha, a true cynic after all, who has denied being cynical and calls
himself a skeptic!? A cynic shows contempt, a skeptic is on a search
for the truth.
....
> She's on-topic and polite, and not trying to censor any discussion.
> Sherilyn's reason for participating has been open from the start, to
> promote free discussion in a place where she saw control freaks trying
> to squelch opinions they don't like, either with multiple complaints
> to their ISPs, harrassment by posting personal information in the
> obvious hopes that some lowlives would flood them with "complaints,"
> or by simply trying to shout them out with Big Lies, such as you're
> doing here.
Oh, please. When you try to insult people's intelligence by expecting
them to believe this stuff, you are only showing your own
underestimation of it and possibly your lack of it.
> Jim
Marsha