Astrology Oath
Bassos
Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at noon,
cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
personality; what should be done ?
Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
Will you do harm if you do not tell ?
Golden Rule :
"Ieder't wil dat u geschied doe dat ook'n ander niet"
erm, erm, Whatever you do not want to happen to you, do not inflict said
action on any other
Kinda biased imo, i do not mind any verbal abuse, but i know lots of people
who do.
Other hand, some people do not mind physical conflict, but i do, i hate
conflict, can't stand the thought of the accident.
(it is hard to act, if you know acting has big results, kinda good in pencak
silat, but not reaaly good, so not enough control at all)
Thelema :
Do what Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Well, how many people really know what Thou wilt ?
So Suggestion :
If in the examination or consideration of the chart of a querent i find
anything i think is worth mentioning, i will only say it to the querent, but
i vow, that i will always say it to the querent.
(kinda of a way to keep bad news from slipping under the rug)
Giev inputz plix.
Tom
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:48ade3fb$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Heyas,
>
> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>
> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
> personality; what should be done ?
Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
experiment before.
Bastedo, R.W. (1978). An empirical test of popular astrology. Skeptical
Inquirer, 3(1), 17-38.
Culver, R.B. & Ianna, P.A. (1984). Astrology: true or false? Buffalo:
Prometheus.
Gauquelin, M. (1982). Zodiac and personality: an empirical study. Skeptical
Inquirer, 6(3), 57-65.
Hentschel, U. & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of birth and personality:
another instance of noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(5),
577-585.
McGervey, J.D. (1977). A statistical test of sun-sign astrology. The
Zetetic, 1(2), 49-54.
McGrew, J.H. & McFall, R.M. (1990). A scientific inquiry into the validity
of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
Startup, M. (1984). Personality and planetary positions at birth: an
attempted replication with ordinary people. Correlation, 4(2), 4-13.
Tyson, G.A. (1984). An emperical test of the astrological theory of
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(2), 247-250.
Van Rooij, J.J.F. (1993). Jungian typology and astrology: an empirical test.
Correlation, 12(1), 28-32.
> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates is
the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the Child".
Hippocrates was a physician from Cos around 440 bce and nobody thought he
was a god, although lots of people thought he was a pretty good guy. He
devised an oath for physicians that included a pledge that he would do no
harm.
I repeat, for emphasis: Do your homework.
Bassos
"Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6oOdnaPlOPF1SzPV...@comcast.com...
It does not look like a list of links discussing the finer details of what
should be done once a definate relationship is found.
Tom : -1, for not reading what i wrote.
>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
>
> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates
> is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
> ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the Child".
Weird, eh, that i would make such a mistake ?
17
> Hippocrates was a physician from Cos around 440 bce and nobody thought he
> was a god, although lots of people thought he was a pretty good guy. He
> devised an oath for physicians that included a pledge that he would do no
> harm.
>
> I repeat, for emphasis: Do your homework.
But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers, if
it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to be
about.
So the question becomes, why did you feel the need to mention all sorts of
irrelevant links to the question ?
And even more importantly, why didn't you respond to the actual question ?
Such noobmistakes, maybe time for a brake ?
Tom
That's because it's *not* a list of links. It's a list of citations of
published reports on experiments very similar to the one you claim to be
doing "atm" perhaps or "in the coming years". Doing a literature search
means looking up published articles reporting on experiments like the one
you want to do. That way, you're not just duplicating stuff that's already
been done and getting some idea on how to construct an experiment that will
actually break some new ground. Your lack of interest in doing such a
search indicates that it's likely that this is not what you want to do. It
looks like what you want to do is pretend to do some research so that you
can use your "results" to prop up your bogus claims for the predictive
validity of your astrological readings.
I keep telling you to do your homework. Perhaps someday you will, but not
now.
>>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
>>
>> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates
>> is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
>> ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the
>> Child".
>
> Weird, eh, that i would make such a mistake ?
No, it's not weird at all. The fact that you don't do your homework
virtually ensures that you'll make such mistakes quite often.
> But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers, if
> it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to be
> about.
All it does is give astrologers something else to be hypocritical about.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48af1b7c$0$187$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:6oOdnaPlOPF1SzPV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48ade3fb$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>> Heyas,
>>>>
>>>> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
>>>> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
>>>> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>>>>
>>>> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>>>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>>>> personality; what should be done ?
>>>
>>> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
>>> experiment before.
<snip>
>> It does not look like a list of links discussing the finer details of
>> what should be done once a definate relationship is found.
>
> That's because it's *not* a list of links.
You misunderstand.
I visited the sites those links referred to, but found no research even
remotely linked to what i propose to do.
<snip tom did not read what i asked>
> I keep telling you to do your homework. Perhaps someday you will, but not
> now.
I keep telling you : read what is there....
>>>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
>>>
>>> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates
>>> is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
>>> ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the
>>> Child".
>>
>> Weird, eh, that i would make such a mistake ?
>
> No, it's not weird at all. The fact that you don't do your homework
> virtually ensures that you'll make such mistakes quite often.
You did not look up Harpocrates, did you ?
>> But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers,
>> if it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to
>> be about.
>
> All it does is give astrologers something else to be hypocritical about.
Says you.
You have not provided any useful input into this research yet.
I sincerely hope you will be more helpful next post.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:a4GdnU7OI9_X4i3V...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48af1b7c$0$187$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6oOdnaPlOPF1SzPV...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:48ade3fb$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>> Heyas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
>>>>> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
>>>>> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>>>>>
>>>>> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>>>>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart
>>>>> and personality; what should be done ?
>>>>
>>>> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
>>>> experiment before.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> It does not look like a list of links discussing the finer details of
>>> what should be done once a definate relationship is found.
>>
>> That's because it's *not* a list of links.
>
> You misunderstand.
When you write "It does not look like a list of links", I interpret that as
meaning that it does not appear to you to be a list of links. But perhaps
you meant something completely different than what you actually wrote.
> I visited the sites those links referred to, but found no research even
> remotely linked to what i propose to do.
They... Are... Not... Links.
They... Are... Citations.
Pay... Attention.
To find them, you will have to go to a good university library and look them
up.
>>>>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
>>>>
>>>> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates".
>>>> Harpocrates is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus,
>>>> whose name in ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as
>>>> "Horus the Child".
>>>
>>> Weird, eh, that i would make such a mistake ?
>>
>> No, it's not weird at all. The fact that you don't do your homework
>> virtually ensures that you'll make such mistakes quite often.
>
> You did not look up Harpocrates, did you ?
Yes, I did. I also looked up Hippocrates. You did not. This is evident by
your misattribution of the Oath of Hippocrates to Harpocrates. Now, quit
trying to cover up your abject ignorance and carelessness by pretending to
know things you clearly and demonstrably don't.
> You have not provided any useful input into this research yet.
That's because your scholarship is so shoddy that you can't even figure out
how to access research literature even after having been given the
citations.
Bassos
That is vpn + google, you nubcake.
That is why it *is* a list of links.
copy paste into google links.
You restrict the meaning of link to meaning something clickable, that opens
a webbrowser or somesuch.
Hint, the word link is far older than ze interwebz.
>>>>>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates".
>>>>> Harpocrates is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus,
>>>>> whose name in ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as
>>>>> "Horus the Child".
>>>>
>>>> Weird, eh, that i would make such a mistake ?
>>>
>>> No, it's not weird at all. The fact that you don't do your homework
>>> virtually ensures that you'll make such mistakes quite often.
>>
>> You did not look up Harpocrates, did you ?
>
> Yes, I did.
But you did not get it, oh well.
>> You have not provided any useful input into this research yet.
>
> That's because your scholarship is so shoddy that you can't even figure
> out how to access research literature even after having been given the
> citations.
Heh.
Ze nubcakez.
(resorting to interwebz zpeakz, cos grown up talk goes over your headz)
And btw, still no technical nor scholarly discussion of the subject under
discussion, only moaning and bitching, good show tom.
HG
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:M_idnTA-icaxui7V...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:48b2fd0f$0$188$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:a4GdnU7OI9_X4i3V...@comcast.com...
> >>>
> >>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> >>> news:48af1b7c$0$187$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:6oOdnaPlOPF1SzPV...@comcast.com...
> >>>>> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
> >>>>> experiment before.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>> It does not look like a list of links discussing the finer details of
> >>>> what should be done once a definate relationship is found.
> >>>
> >>> That's because it's *not* a list of links.
> >>
> >> You misunderstand.
> >
> > When you write "It does not look like a list of links", I interpret that
> > as meaning that it does not appear to you to be a list of links. But
> > perhaps you meant something completely different than what you actually
> > wrote.
> >
> >> I visited the sites those links referred to, but found no research even
> >> remotely linked to what i propose to do.
> >
> > They... Are... Not... Links.
> > They... Are... Citations.
> > Pay... Attention.
> >
> > To find them, you will have to go to a good university library and look
> > them up.
>
> That is vpn + google, you nubcake.
> That is why it *is* a list of links.
> copy paste into google links.
> You restrict the meaning of link to meaning something clickable, that opens
> a webbrowser or somesuch.
> Hint, the word link is far older than ze interwebz.
At times I find things that simply stun me, stop me and fill me with awe and
wonder.
This reply of yours was such a thing of terrifying beauty.
A stupidity such as yours can not be given. You must have devoted long years
of hard work in perfecting and honing your boneheadedness, empty bravado and
obliviousness. Not to mention your diamond-hard refusal to ever admit that
you might be wrong about anything whatsoever.
Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned it.
HG
Bassos
"HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:m38wuj5...@nothung.homelinux.net...
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
<re citations of literature>
>> > To find them, you will have to go to a good university library and look
>> > them up.
>>
>> That is vpn + google, you nubcake.
>> That is why it *is* a list of links.
>> copy paste into google links.
>> You restrict the meaning of link to meaning something clickable, that
>> opens
>> a webbrowser or somesuch.
>> Hint, the word link is far older than ze interwebz.
>
> At times I find things that simply stun me, stop me and fill me with awe
> and
> wonder.
Only some times ?
Pay more attention.
> This reply of yours was such a thing of terrifying beauty.
Ofcourse.
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder means :
Change with the reading of every post, so you find beauty.
> A stupidity such as yours can not be given.
It must be earned.
> You must have devoted long years of hard work in perfecting and honing
> your boneheadedness, empty bravado and
> obliviousness.
I surely must have, or was it something that could not be given, me with my
inferior mind cannot tell between your internal inconsistencies.
> Not to mention your diamond-hard refusal to ever admit that
> you might be wrong about anything whatsoever.
This being a claim that i have never ever admitted to being wrong, should be
reaaaallyy hard to put to rest, right ?
> Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned it.
Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
Why this whoring for attention all of a sudden ?
Erwin Hessle
> Why this whoring for attention all of a sudden ?
Oh, the irony.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
>
>
> still no technical nor scholarly discussion of the subject under
> discussion, only moaning and bitching,
Then stop your moaning and bitching and *do your homework*, like I've been
telling you. Look up the citations I gave you. If you start doing what a
scholar actually does, you may someday be able to conduct a scholarly
discussion.
HG
> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:m38wuj5...@nothung.homelinux.net...
> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
> <re citations of literature>
>
> >> > To find them, you will have to go to a good university library and look
> >> > them up.
> >>
> >> That is vpn + google, you nubcake.
> >> That is why it *is* a list of links.
> >> copy paste into google links.
> >> You restrict the meaning of link to meaning something clickable, that
> >> opens
> >> a webbrowser or somesuch.
> >> Hint, the word link is far older than ze interwebz.
> >
> > At times I find things that simply stun me, stop me and fill me with awe
> > and
> > wonder.
>
> Only some times ?
> Pay more attention.
>
> > This reply of yours was such a thing of terrifying beauty.
>
> Ofcourse.
> Beauty being in the eye of the beholder means :
> Change with the reading of every post, so you find beauty.
Yes, keep telling other people what they must do. It'll distract you from
looking into yourself.
> > Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned it.
>
> Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
Hi, I'm HG. I post to alt.magick. If you want to know more, just ask me or
do some research.
> Why this whoring for attention all of a sudden ?
Ask yourself. It's neither my problem nor my responsibility if you look into
a mirror and think you see me.
HG
Bassos
ok, i danced to this silly tune long enough.
Here it is spelled out for you :
Your list of references had nothing whatsoever to do with anything relating
to an oath.
I actually already mentioned this before.
(
Oh, you want the quote, sure, here it is :
"But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers, if
it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to be
about."
)
Why do you continue with this not answering anything i asked about, but
instead talk about something completely different ?
This thread is about what should be done after a significant relationship is
found, not about research into whether it is or is not something relevant.
I specifically mentioned that you did not respond to what i asked about, but
for some reason you found it neccesary to continue on that venue anyway.
Weird, eh ?
Bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
>> > Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned it.
>>
>> Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
>
> Hi, I'm HG. I post to alt.magick. If you want to know more, just ask me
> or
> do some research.
Ah, thanks for the offer, i will take you up on it.
So questions :
1 : What about the content of my posts suggests to you that i should be put
in the tidy little box of corey and archie ?
2 : What do you think i wrote ?
(not a citation, in your own words)
3 : What view on cosmology do you find interesting ?
4 : do you like http://www.hermetic.com/browe/agesnew.html ?
(i have had a complaint that it looks too much like an astrology bit, so
would love extra input)
5 : would you mind presenting a variation on an existing ritual (like lbrp
or so) that you use, instead of the standard ?
6 : Why do you study magick ?
7 : What do you think magick is ? (alternativly; how does it work)
8 : If you would be so kind to mention a working that you felt was 'quite
interesting'.
9 : If magick turns out to be nothing more than a selfhypnosis kind of
thing, would that be enough for you ?
10 : do you find the concept that 'everything that happens is a single
movement' a beautiful concept ?
Tom
>
>
> ok, i danced to this silly tune long enough.
>
> Here it is spelled out for you :
>
> Your list of references had nothing whatsoever to do with anything
> relating to an oath.
I never said anything about them being related to an oath and they were not
intended to. They addressed your claim about your ongoing (actually only
intending to be ongoing at some future time if you can ever discipline
yourself enough to do anything as orghanized as that) comparisons of
astrological charts to personality measures.
Here's what you wrote:
>> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
>> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
>> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>>
>> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>> personality; what should be done ?
And here is my reply:
> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
> experiment before.
>
> Bastedo, R.W. (1978). An empirical test of popular astrology. Skeptical
> Inquirer, 3(1), 17-38.
> Culver, R.B. & Ianna, P.A. (1984). Astrology: true or false? Buffalo:
> Prometheus.
> Gauquelin, M. (1982). Zodiac and personality: an empirical study.
> Skeptical Inquirer, 6(3), 57-65.
> Hentschel, U. & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of birth and personality:
> another instance of noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology,
> 125(5), 577-585.
> McGervey, J.D. (1977). A statistical test of sun-sign astrology. The
> Zetetic, 1(2), 49-54.
> McGrew, J.H. & McFall, R.M. (1990). A scientific inquiry into the validity
> of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
> Startup, M. (1984). Personality and planetary positions at birth: an
> attempted replication with ordinary people. Correlation, 4(2), 4-13.
> Tyson, G.A. (1984). An emperical test of the astrological theory of
> personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(2), 247-250.
> Van Rooij, J.J.F. (1993). Jungian typology and astrology: an empirical
> test. Correlation, 12(1), 28-32.
Your blabber about an oath came later and was not addressed by the citations
above. Yet you seem to want to pretend it was, just like you want to
pretend that the research will conclude what it clearly doesn't conclude at
all.
> I actually already mentioned this before.
> ( Oh, you want the quote, sure, here it is :
> "But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers,
> if
> it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to be
> about." )
And you are wrong about this, too.
Here's what you wrote:
>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
And here's my reply:
> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates
> is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
> ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the Child".
> Hippocrates was a physician from Cos around 440 bce and nobody thought he
> was a god, although lots of people thought he was a pretty good guy. He
> devised an oath for physicians that included a pledge that he would do no
> harm.
So I did indeed write something about your suggested oath and you're
pretending otherwise.
> Why do you continue with this not answering anything i asked about, but
> instead talk about something completely different ?
You make a huge mistake in assuming that the results of research are other
than what they really are because you're too ignorant and lazy to do your
homework. Then you make another huge mistake by calling the oath of
Hippocrates the "Oath of Harpocrates".
Correct your flagrant errors, educate yourself. That's my answer to what
you were talking about.
And now you're getting all huffy because I'm not playing your silly
pretend-games with you.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48b538e3$0$186$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>
>> ok, i danced to this silly tune long enough.
>>
>> Here it is spelled out for you :
>>
>> Your list of references had nothing whatsoever to do with anything
>> relating to an oath.
>
> I never said anything about them being related to an oath and they were
> not intended to.
Then you, like i claim, where not responding to my question.
> Here's what you wrote:
>>> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
>>> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
>>> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>>>
>>> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>>> personality; what should be done ?
Yes, so this means :
If astrology works
We need an oath.
> And here is my reply:
>> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
>> experiment before.
Yeah, and to my question about the oath, it is completely irrelevant.
Which you realize now.
<snipped the rest cos i love tom too much>
HG
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2_2dnbFmqpmkWSnV...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:48b45e83$0$189$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >>
> >> still no technical nor scholarly discussion of the subject under
> >> discussion, only moaning and bitching,
> >
> > Then stop your moaning and bitching and *do your homework*, like I've been
> > telling you. Look up the citations I gave you. If you start doing what a
> > scholar actually does, you may someday be able to conduct a scholarly
> > discussion.
>
>[SNIP]
>
> This thread is about what should be done after a significant relationship is
> found, not about research into whether it is or is not something relevant.
You're like a guy who spends a lot of time planning what to do once you have
ten million euros.
But you'll dismiss as irrelevant all questions about *how* and *when* are you
going to *get* your ten million euros...
You're building the roof of your house before you've even planned to start
building the walls and the foundation.
HG
HG
> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:m3hc965...@nothung.homelinux.net...
> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
> >
> >> > Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned it.
> >>
> >> Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
> >
> > Hi, I'm HG. I post to alt.magick. If you want to know more, just ask me
> > or
> > do some research.
>
> Ah, thanks for the offer, i will take you up on it.
>
> So questions :
Oh, goody! A lot of numerated questions in form of a quiz. Perfect for
scoring. When you want to get to know a stranger better, there's nothing
better than a graded test. "You got 75/100, so I guess you're OK..."
> 1 : What about the content of my posts suggests to you that i should be put
> in the tidy little box of corey and archie ?
I'll cut and paste from your latest post to this newsgroup:
Bassos: Please enlighten me, if 'they' did not refer to the chinese, who did
it refer to ?
Tom: Context.
Bassos: It was in response to a sentence with a nice structure and all, and
in response to that sentence, simple grammar indicated it referred to
the chinese.
Tom: Only when taken completely out of context.
Bassos: Ah, thanks for agreeing with me.
That's Archie quality stupidity and denial right there. And that's just your
latest post.
> 2 : What do you think i wrote ?
> (not a citation, in your own words)
You've written a lot of stuff. Please specify.
> 3 : What view on cosmology do you find interesting ?
I have a soft spot for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> 4 : do you like http://www.hermetic.com/browe/agesnew.html ?
> (i have had a complaint that it looks too much like an astrology bit, so
> would love extra input)
It was a loooong article, so I started out reading just random snippets from
it. All the random snippets I read were worthless newage bullshit, so I
stopped reading.
> 5 : would you mind presenting a variation on an existing ritual (like lbrp
> or so) that you use, instead of the standard ?
I'm currently not doing any hermetic rituals. You can come back to me later,
I'm planning to start doing the Qabalistic Cross, since Erwin recommended it.
(Most of my variations consist of correcting the atrocious spelling and
pronounciation of Hebrew words in hermetic rituals. My wife knows Hebrew and
she habitually laughs at them.)
> 6 : Why do you study magick ?
To make sense of my life.
> 7 : What do you think magick is ? (alternativly; how does it work)
My friend once told me how the universe is a big, gigantic thing, but the
human brain is small. So we need a compression algorithm to reduce the
enormous universe into a tiny little model that fits inside our heads.
My current working hypothesis about magick is that it's messing around with
and tuning that compression algorithm.
> 8 : If you would be so kind to mention a working that you felt was 'quite
> interesting'.
I'm planning mentioning one pretty soon, once I've reread my diaries, but
that'll take a while, so I'll not mention it in this post. Look for my reply
to an older post made by Erwin.
> 9 : If magick turns out to be nothing more than a selfhypnosis kind of
> thing, would that be enough for you ?
I find that question irrelevant. If I'm setting out to find what is really
going on, I find it pointless and counterproductive to have any
preconceptions about what I will find.
> 10 : do you find the concept that 'everything that happens is a single
> movement' a beautiful concept ?
Err... I don't find it beautiful, but neither do I find it not beautiful.
So how did I do? Did I match your preconceptions? What's my score?
HG
Tom
>
> Yes, so this means :
> If astrology works
> We need an oath.
So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works. Hint:
It doesn't predict personalities or future events.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:JZWdnf5_w_3Q4ijV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48b538e3$0$186$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> relating to an oath.
>>
>> I never said anything about them being related to an oath and they were
>> not intended to.
>
> Then you, like i claim, where not responding to my question.
Here's your question:
"As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
personality; what should be done?"
The answer to this question is that you should find out whether or not there
actually is such a correlation instead of presuming it. People have done
this research before. I told you exactly who did it and where to find the
results. Obviously, you don't know about that and don't care anyway. You
just want to spin out yet another empty fantasy instead.
And you got Hippocrates mixed up with Harpocrates, you ignorant wanker.
That's my answer to your question and my comment about your silly,
inconsequential "astrology oath".
Melkor
ROTFLMFAO
Bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
>> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:m3hc965...@nothung.homelinux.net...
>> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>> >
>> >> > Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
>> >
>> > Hi, I'm HG. I post to alt.magick. If you want to know more, just ask
>> > me
>> > or
>> > do some research.
>>
>> Ah, thanks for the offer, i will take you up on it.
>>
>> So questions :
>
> Oh, goody! A lot of numerated questions in form of a quiz.
Buzz, nope. it is not a quiz.
They are just questions.
> Perfect for scoring.
I am sorry to inform you that there are no scorable points on this test.
> When you want to get to know a stranger better, there's nothing
> better than a graded test.
You sincerely lack imagination if you think a graded test is best for
getting to know someone.
> "You got 75/100, so I guess you're OK..."
No, you are not ok.
<snip HG no adding anything to what was befoe>
> So how did I do?
You did very bad.
> Did I match your preconceptions?
Well, i did not had high hopes for you, so yes, you completely matched my
preconceptions.
> What's my score?
0
Do you care ?
Bassos
"Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C42dnYhX5dehQCjV...@comcast.com...
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:JZWdnf5_w_3Q4ijV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48b538e3$0$186$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> Your list of references had nothing whatsoever to do with anything
>>>> relating to an oath.
>>>
>>> I never said anything about them being related to an oath and they were
>>> not intended to.
>>
>> Then you, like i claim, where not responding to my question.
>
> Here's your question:
>
> "As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
> personality; what should be done?"
>
> The answer to this question is that you should find out whether or not
> there actually is such a correlation instead of presuming it.
And i am doing that, and asking help in said process.\
+1 Tom not getting it.
> People have done this research before.
No mate, people have not done *this* research before.
One reason they didn't do this before is that the data was not present
before.
You seriously need to rethink what i am doing before you come close to
understanding.
(this is not just related to astrology, and includes Erwin now)
>I told you exactly who did it and where to find the results. Obviously,
>you don't know about that and don't care anyway. You just want to spin out
>yet another empty fantasy instead.
Think ridlle of liv
Bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
> You're like a guy who spends a lot of time planning what to do once you
> have
> ten million euros.
Ah, you are making fantasies about me, how fantastic.
> But you'll dismiss as irrelevant all questions about *how* and *when* are
> you
> going to *get* your ten million euros...
Well, there is the thing about not having been asked any questions.
> You're building the roof of your house before you've even planned to start
> building the walls and the foundation.
You sound bitter.
Lighten up, life is joy.
Erwin Hessle
> You seriously need to rethink what i am doing before you come close to
> understanding.
> (this is not just related to astrology, and includes Erwin now)
Somebody needs to seriously rethink what you are doing. You have just
yet to correctly identify who that somebody is. These two things are
not unconnected.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> Yes, so this means :
>> If astrology works
>> We need an oath.
>
> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
You complete and utter idiot.
I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
This is the scientific process, you noob.
For the Eeediots :
Yes, you first need a theory, and only after the theory do you conduct
research.
The reason why this particular bit of research gets obstructed is because it
is new.
Read up on history.
Then read up on me.
How likely is it that Bassos thinks astrology is a worthwhile endeavour,
without astrology being thus ?
Before the previous question is answered, first answer :
Who is the smartest person you know ?
Is Bassos smarter than that person ?
(yes)
ARARITA (for Erwin)
Bassos
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:8e7a55b4-dbc3-49da...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
You seriously need to post in normal format.
(html nub, like i wrote)
HG
> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> > You're building the roof of your house before you've even planned to start
> > building the walls and the foundation.
>
> You sound bitter.
Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming "LALALALALAA!"
That should make you hear better.
HG
HG
That was *irony*. Only a complete nincompoop would think I was serious.
Never mind, if you don't get it, at least almost everybody else did.
> > "You got 75/100, so I guess you're OK..."
>
> No, you are not ok.
>
> <snip HG no adding anything to what was befoe>
So I take the effort to answer your questions as best as I can, and you don't
bother to write anything more than that?
Sucks to be you. At least I got something out of answering those questions.
> > Did I match your preconceptions?
>
> Well, i did not had high hopes for you, so yes, you completely matched my
> preconceptions.
And that's all you ever pay attention to. Your preconceptions. You see
nothing else.
Keep this up. You'll ascend to Archie's vacant throne in no time, as the
King of Alt.Magick Idiots.
HG
Bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
> At least I got something out of answering those questions.
Thank you.
Bassos
I'm sorry.
I do not speak when i read.
It makes for far faster reading, you should try it.
HG
> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> news:m3d4jr8...@nothung.homelinux.net...
> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
> >
> >> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
> >> > You're building the roof of your house before you've even planned to
> >> > start
> >> > building the walls and the foundation.
> >>
> >> You sound bitter.
> >
> > Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming "LALALALALAA!"
> > That should make you hear better.
>
> I'm sorry.
> I do not speak when i read.
> It makes for far faster reading, you should try it.
Now that was a picture perfect demonstration about what happens when you put
you fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
All Bassos heard was his own voice.
All he *ever* hears is his own voice.
He's so fucked up and I wonder how that happened. What hurt his ego so bad
he spends all his energy defending it?
HG
Bassos
"Melkor" <mor...@terra.com> wrote in message
news:fr0cb4l17aeuu4cb4...@4ax.com...
> ROTFLMFAO
Your ass is fucking ?
Bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
>> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:m3d4jr8...@nothung.homelinux.net...
>> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>> >
>> >> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> >> > You're building the roof of your house before you've even planned to
>> >> > start
>> >> > building the walls and the foundation.
>> >>
>> >> You sound bitter.
>> >
>> > Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming "LALALALALAA!"
>> > That should make you hear better.
>>
>> I'm sorry.
>> I do not speak when i read.
>> It makes for far faster reading, you should try it.
>
> Now that was a picture perfect demonstration about what happens when you
> put
> you fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
You think i wrote something perfect ?
wow, i must be great.
> All Bassos heard was his own voice.
I did ?
> All he *ever* hears is his own voice.
All this fantiastic elastic dreaming, about me, nice.
What do i look like in your dreams ?
> He's so fucked up and I wonder how that happened. What hurt his ego so
> bad
> he spends all his energy defending it?
I spend all my energy defending my ego ?
Projection much ?
I spend half my time in alt.magick writing interesting things and the other
half of my time destroying any image of a sage that might build up.
(even telling this straigth out does not matter, which i find completely
fantastic too)
And then i also do the 'it is done' bit and move on.
Did you move on recently ?
HG
He's so cute.
He spends all his effort in trying to appear as the Enlightened Emperor of
the Universe, telling other people what to do. But he does it so desperately
anyone can see he's really a frightened little child. A ten year old
screaming at adults how he'll kick their asses.
And the more effort he puts into it, the more obvious his desperation
becomes.
Sucks to be him, but it's fun to watch.
HG
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C42dnYhX5dehQCjV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>
>> Here's your question:
>>
>> "As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>> personality; what should be done?"
>>
>> The answer to this question is that you should find out whether or not
>> there actually is such a correlation instead of presuming it.
>
> And i am doing that, and asking help in said process.
I'm glad to see that you have finally realized that I did answer your
question. Too bad you're not *actually* doing that research or asking for
help doing it. If you were, you'd be thanking me for the valuable
contribution I've made to your efforts in the matter. Instead, you didn't
even understand what the citations were (you thought they were some sort of
"links") and complained that they had nothing to do with your silly
"astrologer's oath".
>> People have done this research before.
>
> No mate, people have not done *this* research before.
Until you read the research reports I cited, you're talking out of your ass.
But, of course, that's nothing new.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4ZqdnQsUs_1YRCjV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> Yes, so this means :
>>> If astrology works
>>> We need an oath.
>>
>> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
>
> You complete and utter idiot.
>
> I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
But, you see, that's what makes *you* a complete and utter idiot. You're
trying to count your chickens before you even know if you have any eggs to
hatch in the first place.
> This is the scientific process, you noob.
Writing some stupid oath for the practice of astrology is not a scientific
process, you pinhead. Ity's not even part of a scientific process. Nor are
you actually doing any research which could be seriously thought to be
scientific. You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project.
You don't know even know how to start designing one.
> Yes, you first need a theory, and only after the theory do you conduct
> research.
Wrong again, chuckles. First you generate a hypothesis that explains some
observeable behavior. In science, there is a difference between an
hypothesis and a theory. Theories are hypotheses that have been strongly
supported by experimental evidence and not yet refuted by any.
> The reason why this particular bit of research gets obstructed is because
> it is new.
It's not obstructed at all. The only reason *you're* not doing it is that
you don't know how and you're too lazy to even find out how, let alone
actually do the work. I have given you a list of citations of people who
have done exactly the scientific research you claimed you want to do. You
have not yet read these studies and have objected to the fact that I even
brought them up.
bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48b889ca$0$184$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:4ZqdnQsUs_1YRCjV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, so this means :
>>>> If astrology works
>>>> We need an oath.
>>>
>>> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
>>
>> You complete and utter idiot.
>>
>> I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
>
> But, you see, that's what makes *you* a complete and utter idiot. You're
> trying to count your chickens before you even know if you have any eggs to
> hatch in the first place.
Heh, Tom expresses his inability to understand science.
>> This is the scientific process, you noob.
>
> Writing some stupid oath for the practice of astrology is not a scientific
> process, you pinhead.
Complete and utter failure to understand what i wrote noted.
> Ity's not even part of a scientific process.
Bwuahahahahaa.
Another failure of Tom.
> Nor are you actually doing any research which could be seriously thought
> to be scientific.
What research do you think i am doing ?
> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You don't
> know even know how to start designing one.
Well, actual science disagrees with you.
I'm quite sure this will not stop you.
>> Yes, you first need a theory, and only after the theory do you conduct
>> research.
>
> Wrong again, chuckles.
No, not wrong.
This is you being completely and utterly ignorent about what science
entails.
Hint : Using research to create theories is not science.
> First you generate a hypothesis that explains some
> observeable behavior.
So, i ask about the hypothesis, but you instead of adding content, only
whine.
Good show Tom.......
> In science, there is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
> Theories are hypotheses that have been strongly supported by experimental
> evidence and not yet refuted by any.
Even though you are mentioning stuff that is inherent in my stuff;
What kind of research has been done that gives any insight into what an
astrology oath should be like ?
(you complete and utter noob)
>> The reason why this particular bit of research gets obstructed is because
>> it is new.
>
> It's not obstructed at all.
Heh, mister oblivious makes another failure.
> The only reason *you're* not doing it is that you don't know how and
> you're too lazy to even find out how, let alone actually do the work. I
> have given you a list of citations of people who have done exactly the
> scientific research you claimed you want to do. You have not yet read
> these studies and have objected to the fact that I even brought them up.
Do you really want me to show why the references you posted have nothing to
do with an oath ?
(oh wait, i already did that, you are just whining)
Face up to it Tom,
You got pwned.
(by yourself, due to not reading what i post)
bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48b883ea$0$189$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:C42dnYhX5dehQCjV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> Then you, like i claim, where not responding to my question.
>>>
>>> Here's your question:
>>>
>>> "As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>>> personality; what should be done?"
>>>
>>> The answer to this question is that you should find out whether or not
>>> there actually is such a correlation instead of presuming it.
>>
>> And i am doing that, and asking help in said process.
>
> I'm glad to see that you have finally realized that I did answer your
> question.
Not at all, you noob.
I transformed your message so it would be something intelligable.
You did not catch on.
<snip tom still trying to make this about something other than i asked
about)
>>> People have done this research before.
>>
>> No mate, people have not done *this* research before.
>
> Until you read the research reports I cited, you're talking out of your
> ass. But, of course, that's nothing new.
You still have no clue about what i am doing.
Thinking your presented research has a bearing on what i do, you silly noob
you.
I told you : I am way ahead of you, you should try to learn instead of teach
when interacting with me.
bassos
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
>
>
> He's so cute.
>
> He spends all his effort in trying to appear as the Enlightened Emperor of
> the Universe, telling other people what to do.
You think i come across as the enlightened emperor of the universe ?
Wow.
Such imagination.
Maybe take more control of your life ?
Tom
"bassos" <no...@askffs.com> wrote in message
news:48bb54ff$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:wqGdnYDY-KZqXiTV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48b889ca$0$184$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4ZqdnQsUs_1YRCjV...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, so this means :
>>>>> If astrology works
>>>>> We need an oath.
>>>>
>>>> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
>>>
>>> You complete and utter idiot.
>>>
>>> I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
>>
>> But, you see, that's what makes *you* a complete and utter idiot. You're
>> trying to count your chickens before you even know if you have any eggs
>> to hatch in the first place.
>
> Heh, Tom expresses his inability to understand science.
Would you like to explain to me what part of scientific research includes an
oath? I'd be fascinated to know just what it is you think "science" is.
>> Nor are you actually doing any research which could be seriously thought
>> to be scientific.
>
> What research do you think i am doing ?
I just said you're not doing any.
>> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You don't
>> know even know how to start designing one.
>
> Well, actual science disagrees with you.
"Actual science" is not some person who can disagree with me. You don't
know how, or are disinclined, to find out what prior research has been done
on subjects that impact your own idea for a scientific research project.
Nobody who knew how to conduct scientific research would neglect that. But
you, even after having it pointed out to you, don't realize it.
>>> Yes, you first need a theory, and only after the theory do you conduct
>>> research.
>>
>> Wrong again, chuckles.
>
> No, not wrong
Yes, wrong. For reasons given that you. in your utter ignorance, don't even
understand.
> What kind of research has been done that gives any insight into what an
> astrology oath should be like ?
The citations I gave you were reports of scioentific experiments that
sompare personality measures with astrological charts, which is what you
said was the scientific research you claimed to be doing, or that you would
do in the future, the results of which would have to nb be positive before
any oath would be necessary. Since that research has been done, and I gave
you the exact publications where you could find thise results, your nexyt
step, if you were not merely a wanker, would be to check them out. You
haven't. What you did was express your ignorance of what the citations
were.
>>> The reason why this particular bit of research gets obstructed is
>>> because it is new.
>>
>> It's not obstructed at all.
>
> Heh, mister oblivious makes another failure.
If you think you're being prevented from doing research, tell us how that is
being done to you.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:raOdnVtbEIB-IiTV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:48b883ea$0$189$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C42dnYhX5dehQCjV...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you, like i claim, where not responding to my question.
>>>>
>>>> Here's your question:
>>>>
>>>> "As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>>>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>>>> personality; what should be done?"
>>>>
>>>> The answer to this question is that you should find out whether or not
>>>> there actually is such a correlation instead of presuming it.
>>>
>>> And i am doing that, and asking help in said process.
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have finally realized that I did answer your
>> question.
>
> Not at all, you noob.
> I transformed your message so it would be something intelligable.
That's "intelligible", you illiterate moron. And yes, you did realize it,
but now, having been totally busted, you're trying to squirm out of it.
It's far too late for that. You've already shown yourself to be an
ignorant, hypocritical jackass. No amount of braying is going to change
that.
Tom
>> of
>> the Universe, telling other people what to do.
>
> You think i come across as the enlightened emperor of the universe ?
No, you come across as an idiot who is trying to appear to be an enlightened
emperor of the universe, just like she said.
Bassos
Ah, the last resort.
Having found out to not having written anything about my question, you do
this.
This is soo below you.
Weird, eh ?
Bassos
>
> "bassos" <no...@askffs.com> wrote in message
> news:48bb54ff$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:wqGdnYDY-KZqXiTV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48b889ca$0$184$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ZqdnQsUs_1YRCjV...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, so this means :
>>>>>> If astrology works
>>>>>> We need an oath.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
>>>>
>>>> You complete and utter idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
>>>
>>> But, you see, that's what makes *you* a complete and utter idiot.
>>> You're trying to count your chickens before you even know if you have
>>> any eggs to hatch in the first place.
>>
>> Heh, Tom expresses his inability to understand science.
>
> Would you like to explain to me what part of scientific research includes
> an oath? I'd be fascinated to know just what it is you think "science"
> is.
Note, even after i explained it, Tom stil does not get it.
That's okey lover, this is just you being difficult, you will outgrow that.
>>> Nor are you actually doing any research which could be seriously thought
>>> to be scientific.
>>
>> What research do you think i am doing ?
>
> I just said you're not doing any.
Ah, nice way of completely ignoring the central argument.
Woot woot, Tom.
Noob.
>>> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You
>>> don't know even know how to start designing one.
>>
>> Well, actual science disagrees with you.
>
> "Actual science" is not some person who can disagree with me.
Indeed, it is a set of practices and methods, which you seem to be
completely unclear about.
Even though i already mentioned this :
Formulate theory first.
Then test it.
You noob.
(10 to 1 you will not get it, or if you do get it will not post like you got
it)
Snip rest of Tom's failure.
Mate, i gave plenty of references already about why this is not
straightforward.
At some time this beating you up with statements, should it not get you to
first try my posts, before rejecting them ?
A nice intermezzo is :
When a neuron is born, it follows it path from that moment.
So if you place said born neuron in an older organism (monkey) it still does
it's thing.
(wooot astrology has a neuronal bit of evidence)
Should keep astrology bashers busy long enough.......
mika
>
> Formulate theory first.
> Then test it.
No. First one formulates an hypothesis.
This hypothesis is then tested.
After which point, a theory may be developed.
You fucking idiot.
HG
> A nice intermezzo is :
> When a neuron is born, it follows it path from that moment.
> So if you place said born neuron in an older organism (monkey) it still does
> it's thing.
> (wooot astrology has a neuronal bit of evidence)
>
> Should keep astrology bashers busy long enough.......
You are making absolutely no sense at all.
You should seek professional help, it seems your thought processes are coming
apart.
HG
Erwin Hessle
In order to come apart, said thought processes would need to have been
together in the first place. A quick google search will show that to
be demonstrably not the case for this simpering twat.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1c-dnft3SNmv6CbV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "bassos" <no...@askffs.com> wrote in message
>> news:48bb560b$0$186$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>
>> That's "intelligible", you illiterate moron. And yes, you did realize
>> it, but now, having been totally busted, you're trying to squirm out of
>> it. It's far too late for that. You've already shown yourself to be an
>> ignorant, hypocritical jackass. No amount of braying is going to change
>> that.
>
> Ah, the last resort.
Intelligabble. It *is* your last resort.
Tom
>> an oath? I'd be fascinated to know just what it is you think "science"
>> is.
>
> Note, even after i explained it, Tom stil does not get it.
So you're answer is, "No".
>>>> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You
>>>> don't know even know how to start designing one.
>>>
>>> Well, actual science disagrees with you.
>>
>> "Actual science" is not some person who can disagree with me.
>
> Indeed, it is a set of practices and methods, which you seem to be
> completely unclear about.
Whether you think I'm clear about it or not, it's not a person who can
disagree with my evaluation of your ignorance. I'm still waiting for you to
explain how an oath has anything to do with the methods and practices of
science. You seem reluctant to offer one. Would you like me to explain how
a review of existing scientific reports of experiments addressing your
theory is part of that method?
> Formulate theory first.
> Then test it.
Have you tested your theory that astrological charts can predict results of
personality tests? Or not? If you have, then let's hear about your
methodology. If you have not, let's hear about your proposed methodology.
It's grossly oversimplifying to simply say "test it."
> Mate, i gave plenty of references already about why this is not
> straightforward.
You gave references? I think you did not. Perhaps you only imagined them.
I gave *you* a list of references, though. You didn't like that one bit.
> When a neuron is born, it follows it path from that moment.
> So if you place said born neuron in an older organism (monkey) it still
> does it's thing.
> (wooot astrology has a neuronal bit of evidence)
I don't follow what passes for your "logic" here. What does the arrangement
of planets in the sky have to do with that factoid about neuronal function?
HG
You have a point.
It's his delusions of invincibility and superiority which have become more
bizzare and extreme, with this death magic crap.
He's not merely obsessing about having to win every single argument, no
matter how far away he has to leave logic, reality and common sense behind.
Now he seems to think he's Superman.
Anyway, my main point was: it seems to me he's getting worse.
HG
Erwin Hessle
> It's his delusions of invincibility and superiority which have become more
> bizzare and extreme, with this death magic crap.
All the signs point to him not actually believing any of that crap,
even if it weren't for all the evidence stacked against him. I think
Tom has it about right - this is all little more than a cry for
attention because he's re-discovered someone's astrology book or some
silly bollocks like that.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
HG
OK, I'll take your word for it. You two are better at judging people's (sp?)
motivations than I am.
(Sound of Dutch policemen breathing a collective sigh of relief and
reholstering their guns. No fireplace pokers anticipated.)
HG
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:48c19de6$0$194$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Q9mdnWRhTIbM6SbV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> Would you like to explain to me what part of scientific research
>>> includes an oath? I'd be fascinated to know just what it is you think
>>> "science" is.
>>
>> Note, even after i explained it, Tom stil does not get it.
>
> So you're answer is, "No".
Inability to read noted.
>>>>> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You
>>>>> don't know even know how to start designing one.
>>>>
>>>> Well, actual science disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> "Actual science" is not some person who can disagree with me.
>>
>> Indeed, it is a set of practices and methods, which you seem to be
>> completely unclear about.
>
> Whether you think I'm clear about it or not, it's not a person who can
> disagree with my evaluation of your ignorance.
You call yourself an it ?
Nice look into your selfimage..
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how an oath has anything to do with
> the methods and practices of science.
I already did that.
You did not understand it.
Then i tolld you that you did not understand it.
> You seem reluctant to offer one.
You seem reluctant to accept one.
>Would you like me to explain how a review of existing scientific reports of
>experiments addressing your theory is part of that method?
Well, if you had actually posted research into my theory it might have been
interesting.
This is you weasling.
>> Formulate theory first.
>> Then test it.
>
> Have you tested your theory that astrological charts can predict results
> of personality tests?
Irrelevant nooby.
If you formulate ethics/morals after a problem is found, you are bound to
misuse it.
I wrote this already, but you where too busy ignoring it.
Ethics/Morals before a problem occurs.
>> Mate, i gave plenty of references already about why this is not
>> straightforward.
>
> You gave references? I think you did not. Perhaps you only imagined
> them. I gave *you* a list of references, though. You didn't like that one
> bit.
Nice snippage of your list of references being a complete bit of failure as
relating to an astrology oath.
That you would even find the hubris to go back to it.
Insanity.
(unless, you ofcourse indeed do not understand what i write, like Erwin does
not understand me)
>> When a neuron is born, it follows it path from that moment.
>> So if you place said born neuron in an older organism (monkey) it still
>> does it's thing.
>> (wooot astrology has a neuronal bit of evidence)
>
> I don't follow what passes for your "logic" here.
This is because you need more education, and less grinding habit in
alt.magick.
I tolld you this before.
> What does the arrangement of planets in the sky have to do with that
> factoid about neuronal function?
Failure to think analogically noted.
Change dude, change alot, soon, or your thinking will remain automatic.
(there is the possibility to restructure your brain, but you have to work at
it, not just conclude the easy path)
Chances are high you will not understand this either.
(added so you think twice)
Bassos
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:f90bfc00-3bab-4a11...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 6, 4:59 pm, HG <h...@iki.fi> wrote:
> It's his delusions of invincibility and superiority which have become more
> bizzare and extreme, with this death magic crap.
"All the signs point to him not actually believing any of that crap,"
All the signs point to Erwin still not having figured out how to actually
use usenet, you lousy non-plain-text poster noob.
Go do your homework before you mention me again.
(and yes, i mean the homework i told you to do)
Bassos
I did not ask you.
Spoiler.
What's up, ya thought she might actually write yes ?
Tom
Of course you didn't. Yet you were answered nonetheless.
SixthtySixthSix
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:48c9906a$0$3061$e4fe...@dreader17.news.xs4all.nl...
>
Lucifer.
HG is Tom's butt-monkey. They care for each other... You'll never get
anything on-topic from either one of them that doesn't cater to
opportunistic sensationalism and each's defensive-responsive psychologies.
Anyway, they prolly think they're talking about something or *someone* else
entirely... you know, self-reference is so problematic.
Melkor
>"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>
>> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:m3zlmyd...@nothung.homelinux.net...
>> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>> >
>> >> "HG" <h...@iki.fi> wrote in message
>> >> news:m3hc965...@nothung.homelinux.net...
>> >> > "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Take a seat with Archie and Corey, Bassos the Clown. You've earned
>> >> >> > it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, i should know who you are or something ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi, I'm HG. I post to alt.magick. If you want to know more, just ask
>> >> > me
>> >> > or
>> >> > do some research.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, thanks for the offer, i will take you up on it.
>> >>
>> >> So questions :
>> >
>> > Oh, goody! A lot of numerated questions in form of a quiz.
>>
>> Buzz, nope. it is not a quiz.
>> They are just questions.
>>
>> > Perfect for scoring.
>>
>> I am sorry to inform you that there are no scorable points on this test.
>>
>> > When you want to get to know a stranger better, there's nothing
>> > better than a graded test.
>>
>> You sincerely lack imagination if you think a graded test is best for
>> getting to know someone.
>
>That was *irony*. Only a complete nincompoop would think I was serious.
>
>Never mind, if you don't get it, at least almost everybody else did.
>
>
>> > "You got 75/100, so I guess you're OK..."
>>
>> No, you are not ok.
>>
>> <snip HG no adding anything to what was befoe>
>
>So I take the effort to answer your questions as best as I can, and you don't
>bother to write anything more than that?
>
>Sucks to be you. At least I got something out of answering those questions.
>
>
>> > Did I match your preconceptions?
>>
>> Well, i did not had high hopes for you, so yes, you completely matched my
>> preconceptions.
>
>And that's all you ever pay attention to. Your preconceptions. You see
>nothing else.
>
>Keep this up. You'll ascend to Archie's vacant throne in no time, as the
>King of Alt.Magick Idiots.
>
>
LOL LOL
> HG