Why Astrology Works
Edmond Wollmann
living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
expressed in non-physical reality, which is really the template for
the physical world. The physical world is the shadow or reflection of
this archetypal substream consciousness. In this way the non-physical
template acts as a springboard or lightsource for beliefs and ideas;
which is what the entire Multiverse is made of: LIVING LIGHT. This
light is the consciousness of "All That Is" or God which is
manifesting in all the ways it can FOREVER.
Which part of the ALL shall we deem "BETTER" than another?
Then, these archetypes or ideas as they manifest within the mind of
"All That Is" are REFLECTED in the physical because the physical is
the effect of them. The physical is the effect of the mental, not the
other way around (please see my "Mind/Matter Mirror post). We are a
part of All That Is, therefore WE are all the ways it has of
expressing itself. It (ALL THAT IS) expresses itself in an infinite
array of archetypal configurations (arrangement of ideas basically).
Therefore, when these archetypes manifest the all of physicality they
carry this pattern of the non-physical template into the physical.
There is really not any time or space (time and space are illusions,
real only while you are "in" them and choose to create them) "while"
this is happening, and so we discovered the idea of synchronicity
(Carl Jung), which explains WHY it appears that these archetypes
manifest everywhere ALL AT ONCE, because that is "really" what is
"happening". Because time and space are illusions and simply EFFECTS
of physical focus (Saturn), nothing ever really goes anywhere--it only
changes, and the changes are simply our sequential focus on things
that are actually existent all at once, right now. Hence, the changing
of our mind in linear fashion.
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark
it."Lincoln Barnett, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
So when we look at the time of birth when the being becomes physical
we are able to see the primal energy sea and its "frozen version"
(frozen in time that is) reflected SYNCHRONISTICALLY in the heavens
from this archetypal arrangement in the nonphysical template. Because
there is no such thing as time/space except when you are focused in it
(by being physically existent and focused thus) it APPEARS in the
"moment" that this one vibrational frequency (the timing of the birth
and corresponding geometric configurations) that reflects the specific
conglomeration of primal archetypal blending at the time then becomes,
or is reflected in, the being that carries it forth THROUGH time in
its expressions with will to manifest it in an infinite array of ways.
As the primal energy changes sequentially through time, we are able to
measure these changes in consciousness by the movement of the planets
etc. because they reflect these energies by their geometric
configurations which is the expression of the energy in physicality
through MATH (deductive logic). Because math is a SPECIFIC FUNCTION of
the physical world and its mechanistic operations, we experience the
idea of Deduction. Induction is the reflection of our free will and
creative force within the DEductive parameters created on the
unconscious archetypal level.
"According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from
any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is
represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of
four independent variables-the coordinates of space and time. It is
just this particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial
character of physical reality.
Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of
physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of
motion." Albert Einstein
In other words, Astrology is a way to measure the effects of our
choice to create time and space and be a being within it while we are
creating it. Now these choices happen on all levels of our psyche,
this is why astrology MUST be used in conjunction with psychology,
because we are really measuring the developmental creative processes
and choices of the person or collective in question when using
astrology to do so.
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience
by a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
Albert Einstein
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape,
and extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
So we are the reality it appears we exist within. Therefore, there is
no MYSTERY WHY it works if you understand these things, because it is
simply a GIVEN that it would if you can fully comprehend all the
paradigms that support my assertion and the recognition that it is
just one aspect of "All That Is" (us as beings) looking back at
another aspect of itself. It is really an illusion to believe we are
separate--not that we are one. Therefore, the question as to why it
works is based on this illusion, and is basically one stemming from a
lack of awareness, and that is all. It works because we and the
apparently "outer space" are actually all one thing working in
synchronous accord and perfect harmony and reflection.
The Inner Reaches of Outer Space.
Those who hear not the music-
Think the dancers mad.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Academic http://www.astroconsulting.com/SDSU
Artistic http://www.e-wollmann.com/
Edmond Wollmann
Convicted criminal Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Astrology is an Art/Science that
has swollen Wollmann's head to panty-stretching proportions.
Cujo
news:8da057fc.02071...@posting.google.com:
> Astrology is an
attempt by Edmo to part rubes from their money.
--
There wouldn't be as many satisfied ladies around, if I
hadn't ditched them long ago! - Edmo in a moment of candor.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the August, 2000 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
>living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
Is there some reason why you won't?
-- Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
"Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com
Why did the Scientologist cross the road? - mimus
To slug Bob Minton. - Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/
"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- "Jason Daniel Henderson" <jhend...@icr.org>
Edmond Wollmann
insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
> >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
> >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
> Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
"proof."
James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
If he doesn't prefer astrology--art--or well done steaks--is not my
business, it is his choice to be anything he prefers--just as it is
mine, yours and everyone elses to do so.
We can only offer experiments, arguments, analogies etc., as an
OPPORTUNITY to allow others to grow in perception and understanding.
One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it. Because it is
BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around. In the same way that
you believe spamming your ideas and trying to force them on people and
groups who prefer different things than you, some of us believe
offering people alternative ways to explore the universe is positive
and our right.
Therefore, if my work serves others, they use it and garner service
from it, if it doesn't, they can simply go their own way, and explore
things and ideas that do.
I still will have faith that "Randi's and Frederick Rice OCD paranoid
idea forcers" can be positive and allow others their freedoms and
choices--no matter how negative, obsessed and spinical and miserable
they are determined to be.
Integrity is always the key, not "rights and wrongs" which are most
often the small minded judgments of those whose insecurities are so
great that they cannot be for their own preferences but must be
AGAINST and harass others for theirs.
> Is there some reason why you won't?
I am the authority of my work, not Randi. He must come to me and
humble himself to learn and grow to begin to see it--if he chooses not
to, he is ignored by the higher vibration (me) and allowed to wallow
in his own obsessions and insecurities as long as he obviously
believes it serves him in some way and does not force it on me or
others in this group (metapsych). At some point in his evolution, he
will overcome his petty limitations and become more understanding,
until then, I ignore the negativity.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind about nothing--to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all
thoughts, not a select party." John Keats
"THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you
questioned it? The uncritical acceptance of beliefs handed down to you
by parents, teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous.
Many of these beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies,
designed to control you. Even when what has been handed down is true,
it is not your truth. To merely accept anything without questioning it
is to be somebody else's puppet, a second-hand person.
Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down.
Wisdom can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom.
Trying to hand down philosophy is unphilosophical.
Wisdom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything
is question-able, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what
philosophy is: the art of questioning everything." "The Experience of
Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
Spàmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>
Go ahead, if you insist on being laughed at, kook.
http://internettrash.com/users/spamster/
Cardinal Chunder
> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>
> FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
>
> No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
> anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> "proof."
Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After all,
how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it even works?
> James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
Randi is a skeptic not a cynic and you wouldn't have to prove *anything*
to him. The criteria for winning the challenge would be determined in
advance and self-evident.
Assuming you proposed a reasonable criteria that eliminated the
possibility of blind luck and ambiguity from polluting the test, I am
sure Randi would have no problems with you applying. Everything would be
written out and agreed to up front with lawyers so it wouldn't matter if
you won but hadn't "proved" it to Randi at the end. The answers would be
clear-cut and there to see and you'd still walk home with the cash and
lucrative book, tv and lecture rights.
But there's no chance of that happening is there? I guess you're too
rich and noble to stoop so low as to use your "skills" for money? I
guess you don't care much for war babies, orphans, sick animals or
cancer patients that you could help by donating the million dollars
prize. Randi has put his money (and reputation) on the line and all have
to do is walk up and claim the prize.
There is no fear of that happening is there?
Bruce Edmond Stapleton
deadbeat, bankruptcy-filing kook, highschool drop-out, perpetual
student, failed predictor, plagiarist, thief, asshole, Usenet spammer,
20-time Net and ISP account loser, physical stalker, unlicensed
fraudulent "counselor" who has sex with his "clients", borrows money
from them, then publicly discloses their private communications after
they call him on his lack of ethics, illegally operating an astrology
business in San Diego, convicted in San Diego on 6/28/98 of a
misdemeanor (PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation,
sued in San Diego for Unlawful Detainer and evicted in 3/96, past
violator of Federal and State game laws for abusing wildlife, described,
punished, and banned from University servers as an abuser by SDSU, and
remorseless confessed killer of another human being wrote:
> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>
> FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
>
> > >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
> > >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
>
> > Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
>
> No one can "prove" anything to anyone.
So much for getting anywhere with that stupid little complaint you filed
with the CA A.G. then, huh, dumbshit?
Cujo
> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
Replaced. Keep whining, crybaby.
> FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message
> news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
>
>> >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
>> >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
>
>> Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi,
>> right?
>
> No one can "prove" anything to anyone.
Then those suits you claim to have filed won't be doing any good.
> I can demonstrate astrology to
> anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> "proof."
Bullshit. I can demonstrate gravity and it works.
> James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
Then you chose to create a reality where you are a babbling kook instead
of one where you have a million dollars of Randi's cash! What an idiot!
> If he doesn't prefer astrology--art--or well done steaks--is not my
> business, it is his choice to be anything he prefers--just as it is
> mine, yours and everyone elses to do so.
We were discussing *proof* not preference. Topic drift noted.
> We can only offer experiments, arguments, analogies etc., as an
> OPPORTUNITY to allow others to grow in perception and understanding.
You certainly have offered no experiments as proof.
> One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it.
Nope. I don't have to believe in gravity for it to work.
> Because it is
> BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around. In the same way that
> you believe spamming your ideas and trying to force them on people and
> groups who prefer different things than you, some of us believe
> offering people alternative ways to explore the universe is positive
> and our right.
Sure, by trying to bilk rubes out of money for worthless babble.
> Therefore, if my work serves others, they use it and garner service
> from it, if it doesn't, they can simply go their own way, and explore
> things and ideas that do.
Your work serves to make me laugh.
> I still will have faith that "Randi's and Frederick Rice OCD paranoid
> idea forcers" can be positive and allow others their freedoms and
> choices--no matter how negative, obsessed and spinical and miserable
> they are determined to be.
That's why you whine about them so much!
> Integrity is always the key, not "rights and wrongs" which are most
> often the small minded judgments of those whose insecurities are so
> great that they cannot be for their own preferences but must be
> AGAINST and harass others for theirs.
Then why are you always sending whines to ISP's that are spurious?
>> Is there some reason why you won't?
>
> I am the authority of my work, not Randi.
That's a joke, right?
> He must come to me and
> humble himself to learn and grow to begin to see it--if he chooses not
> to, he is ignored by the higher vibration (me) and allowed to wallow
> in his own obsessions and insecurities as long as he obviously
> believes it serves him in some way and does not force it on me or
> others in this group (metapsych).
Incoherence noted, kook.
> At some point in his evolution, he
> will overcome his petty limitations and become more understanding,
> until then, I ignore the negativity.
>
You sure did! Nice whinew, crybaby.
Flash Bazbo
"Edmond Wollmann" <e...@astroconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:8da057fc.02071...@posting.google.com...
> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
metapsych replaced. this is an on-topic discussion, unlike your astrology
posts to alt.psychology.jung.
>
> FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message
news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
>
> > >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
> > >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
>
> > Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi,
right?
>
> No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
> anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> "proof."
You never demonstrate the efficacy of your theories. You just pontificate
absurdities and expect us to accept them at face value.
>
> James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> cynicism, and doubt.
We have repeatedly demonstrated that "spinic" is not a word. The power of
your reality is not going to change that.
> I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
Oh, don't make me do a Google search!
> If he doesn't prefer astrology--art--or well done steaks--is not my
> business, it is his choice to be anything he prefers--just as it is
> mine, yours and everyone elses to do so.
Then why does it piss you off when others question your theories?
> We can only offer experiments, arguments, analogies etc., as an
> OPPORTUNITY to allow others to grow in perception and understanding.
> One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it. Because it is
> BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around.
Some adherents of Transcendental Meditation BELIEVE they can levitate,
however video evidence shows they are merely hopping while in a lotus
position. If I suddenly started to BELIEVE they can fly would that change
the video evidence?
> In the same way that
> you believe spamming your ideas and trying to force them on people and
> groups who prefer different things than you, some of us believe
> offering people alternative ways to explore the universe is positive
> and our right.
So we force spam on metapsych, you offer alt.psychology jung an alternative
view.
Hypocrisy noted.
> Therefore, if my work serves others, they use it and garner service
> from it, if it doesn't, they can simply go their own way, and explore
> things and ideas that do.
But they better not question you or you'll haul their ass into court FOR
ETERNITY!
> I still will have faith that "Randi's and Frederick Rice OCD paranoid
> idea forcers" can be positive and allow others their freedoms and
> choices--no matter how negative, obsessed and spinical and miserable
> they are determined to be.
Funny how it isn't the Randi supporters who are constantly whining in nanau.
Just exactly who are the miserable ones here?
> Integrity is always the key, not "rights and wrongs" which are most
> often the small minded judgments of those whose insecurities are so
> great that they cannot be for their own preferences but must be
> AGAINST and harass others for theirs.
Your sociopathic tendencies are showing.
>
> > Is there some reason why you won't?
>
> I am the authority of my work, not Randi. He must come to me and
> humble himself to learn and grow to begin to see it--if he chooses not
> to, he is ignored by the higher vibration (me) and allowed to wallow
> in his own obsessions and insecurities as long as he obviously
> believes it serves him in some way and does not force it on me or
> others in this group (metapsych).
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and
despair!"
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
> At some point in his evolution, he
> will overcome his petty limitations and become more understanding,
> until then, I ignore the negativity.
Like hell you do.
>
> "The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
> mind about nothing--to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all
> thoughts, not a select party." John Keats
>
> "THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
> Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you
> questioned it? The uncritical acceptance of beliefs handed down to you
> by parents, teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous.
> Many of these beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies,
> designed to control you. Even when what has been handed down is true,
> it is not your truth. To merely accept anything without questioning it
> is to be somebody else's puppet, a second-hand person.
> Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down.
> Wisdom can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom.
> Trying to hand down philosophy is unphilosophical.
> Wisdom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything
> is question-able, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what
> philosophy is: the art of questioning everything." "The Experience of
> Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
A [Temporary] Dog
"Barfing Dog" Wollmann) painted a red bull's eye on his forehead,
ascended the altar of Fluffy and shouted:
>metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic.
Restored.
>Complaints will ensue
And we all know how effective *your* complaints are.
>if you
>insist on spamming
Either stop lying, Ed, or slow down lying if you just can't bare to
stop. You know very well that Fred's post wasn't spam.
>your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
He's merely posting where he wants to post. You could killfile him or
just ignore him. Instead, you resort to threats of netkkkopping in an
attempt to silence him. From where this impermanent canine sits, it
is you, not him, that is attempting (however ineffectively) to use
force.
>FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
>
>> >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
>> >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
>
>> Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
>
>No one can "prove" anything to anyone.
Bullshit. Things are proved in court and in science all the time. It
is only you that can never seem to prove anything.
>I can demonstrate astrology to
>anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
>in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
>"proof."
Reality is what doesn't go away even when no one believes in it.
>James Randi is a spinic,
Good. "And let every one that is yet not a spinic, whether they be
old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little
children, now harken to the loud calls of Edmo's words and be prepared
to laugh."
>a dogmatic believer in negativity and
>cynicism, and doubt.
Got any proof of that?
>I do not prefer to be negative in that way,
Yea, you do negativity the Edmo way.
>or
>create that reality.
You don't create any reality. It just is.
>Therefore our realities will not converge.
I'm sure that just breaks his heart.
>If he doesn't prefer astrology--art--or well done steaks--is not my
>business,
Nice example of package dealing.
>it is his choice to be anything he prefers--just as it is
>mine, yours and everyone elses to do so.
He prefers to be intelligent and enlightening. What was you choice
again?
>We can only offer experiments, arguments, analogies etc.,
Who is this "We" you're referring to? Do you have an imaginary
friend?
>as an
>OPPORTUNITY to allow others to grow in perception and understanding.
Oh, we've learned plenty about how kooks and losers behave from you,
RePeat and HipDan.
>One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it.
If you have to believe in it whole heartedly to see it, then it
doesn't exist.
>Because it is
>BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around.
No wonder *you* can't prove anything.
>In the same way that
>you believe spamming your ideas
And when has Fred ever spammed?
>and trying to force them on people and
>groups who prefer different things than you,
The vast majority of the posters to aa.meta welcome Fred's post there.
You, OTOH, they could do without.
>some of us believe
>offering people alternative ways to explore the universe is positive
>and our right.
And some of us believe that you have not clue one.
>Therefore, if my work serves others, they use it and garner service
>from it, if it doesn't, they can simply go their own way, and explore
>things and ideas that do.
Ed, have you noticed that no one ever flames Agent Smith?
>I still will have faith that "Randi's and Frederick Rice OCD paranoid
>idea forcers"
Try it in english next time, freak.
>can be positive and allow others their freedoms and
>choices
So, you plan to stop netkkkopping and making empty legal threats?
>--no matter how negative, obsessed and spinical and miserable
>they are determined to be.
PKB
>Integrity is always the key, not "rights and wrongs" which are most
>often the small minded judgments of those whose insecurities are so
>great that they cannot be for their own preferences but must be
>AGAINST and harass others for theirs.
Spoken like a true sociopath.
>
>> Is there some reason why you won't?
>
>I am the authority of my work, not Randi. He must come to me and
>humble himself to learn and grow to begin to see it
My what a big ego you have, grandma.
>--if he chooses not
>to, he is ignored by the higher vibration (me)
Your vibration is so high it's damaged your brain.
>and allowed to wallow
>in his own obsessions and insecurities as long as he obviously
>believes it serves him in some way and does not force it on me or
>others in this group (metapsych). At some point in his evolution, he
>will overcome his petty limitations and become more understanding,
>until then, I ignore the negativity.
Why not, since you are the source of the negativity?
>"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
>mind about nothing--to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all
>thoughts, not a select party." John Keats
Gee, it looks like Johnny boy would disagree with your earlier remark
that:
>One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it.
>"THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
> Everything you believe is questionable.
Again, how does this square with your earlier remark that:
>One must believe in something whole-heartedly to SEE it.
--
- A (Temporary) Dog |"I am not a bitch, but,
The Domain is *erols dot com* | I play one on TV."
The Name is tempdog | - A (Temporary) Dog
http://users.erols.com/tempdog/ |
Put together as name@domain |
Edmond Wollmann
Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<3D357A3...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> > insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
> > FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >>Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
> > No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
> > anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> > in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> > "proof."
> Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
> predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After all,
> how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it even works?
I understand the scientific method, because I have created my own
experiments At SDSU, and am a TRUE skeptical scientist, unfettered by
your dogma.
NOTHING is ever "proven."
The null hypothesis is disproved or changes in the null hypothesis are
weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
null hypothesis.
Theories are made of constructs. Constructs are beliefs and paradigms.
Theory=A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or
HYPOTHETICAL laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a
hypothesis NOT YET empirically verified as a law, but accepted as the
basis for experimentation; an exposition of the general or abstract
principles of any science or humanity which have been DERIVED from
PRACTICE; a plan or a system SUGGESTED as a METHOD of action; an ideal
arrangement of events, usu. preceded by in; a doctrine or SCHEME of
things resting merely on SPECULATION, contemplation, supposition, or
conjecture!
Lexicon/Webster, page 1018 #2 of two volume set.
Hypothesis generate theories. Theories generate data to look at.
Theories exist within paradigms. Paradigms are sets of belief
assumptions.
"The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn,
subjective factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the
universe, enter into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any
application of scientific principles, in Kuhn's view, is the concept
of a paradigm, a conceptual framework or approach within which a
scientist works. A paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic
assumptions that outline the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC
ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend
to a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
above connections have different sets of propositions to explain
results.
We can never PROVE anything beyond a doubt, we can only measure the
truth premise of inductive logic through confidence intervals and
tests of significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
it is not flat (in relative terms).
> > James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> > cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> > create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
> Randi is a skeptic not a cynic and you wouldn't have to prove *anything*
I am afraid you are mistaken:
"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.
Spinic=a negative denigrating harassing fallacious and defective
"arguer" who attempts to deceive others into believing the idea that
they have defeated an intelligent argument by name-calling,
underhanded tactics, lack of integral proactive actions bordering on
criminal activity, and harassment.
"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"
Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs"
(Tuchman, 1984, p. 7).
Anyone with a bit of intelligence, can see Randi is a spinic.
> to him. The criteria for winning the challenge would be determined in
> advance and self-evident.
Why do I need to win a spinics challenge? I don't care one speck about
Randi's delusions of granduer.
> Assuming you proposed a reasonable criteria that eliminated the
> possibility of blind luck and ambiguity from polluting the test, I am
> sure Randi would have no problems with you applying. Everything would be
> written out and agreed to up front with lawyers so it wouldn't matter if
> you won but hadn't "proved" it to Randi at the end. The answers would be
> clear-cut and there to see and you'd still walk home with the cash and
> lucrative book, tv and lecture rights.
I will teach Randi lessons in science, metaphysics or logic, he has
nothing to "test" me on. He is not qualified or intelligent enough to
test me, I cannot be tested by a lower vibration such as this, it is
simply not possible.
> But there's no chance of that happening is there? I guess you're too
> rich and noble to stoop so low as to use your "skills" for money?
As I have said from the beginning in 1995, I came here to serve and
serve I am. I am ALWAYS of service. I make money as the product of
service, not scams.
> I
> guess you don't care much for war babies, orphans, sick animals or
> cancer patients that you could help by donating the million dollars
> prize. Randi has put his money (and reputation) on the line and all have
> to do is walk up and claim the prize.
I am not deceived by your garbage. I have overcome the deception of
the material world, and cannot be stopped or con-fused.
"...Material success..may become the very stumbling block for soul
development. And no soul enters a material experience just to have a
good time, or to magnify the ego. For he that is greatest among his
fellow man is the servant of all with whom he comes in contact..."
Edgar Cayce "Faults" IRF 3063-1 M.56 6/26/43
> There is no fear of that happening is there?
I am truly a case of NO FEAR. If there were only ONE TRUTH, there
would only be, one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths,
and there are no others.
Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I
hate.....
I have good advice and sound wisdom;
I have insight I have strength.
By me kings reign,
and rulers decree what is just;
by me rulers rule, and nobles, all who govern rightly.
I love those who love me,
and those who seek me diligently find me.
I am wisdom.
Proverbs 8
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18
Bruce Edmond Stapleton
Edmond Wollmann, child killer, wrote:
>
> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
>
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:<3D357A3...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> > > insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>
> > > FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > >>Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
>
> > > No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
> > > anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> > > in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> > > "proof."
>
> > Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
> > predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After all,
> > how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it even works?
>
> I understand the scientific method, because I have created my own
> experiments At SDSU,
That doesn't mean SHIT, kook.
...
> I make money as the product of
> service, not scams.
Bullshit.
...
>. I have overcome the deception of
> the material world, and cannot be stopped
LIAR!
You got stopeed by cops when they arrested you for Unlawful Entry.
You got stopped from posting from PacBell.
You got stopped from abusing SDSU's servers.
You got stopped from posting from worldnet.att.net
...
>
> I am truly a case of NO FEAR.
Then why didn't you go to lunch at PF CHangs when you were asked to,
fraidy cat?
And don't give us that fucking lie about Roys. PF Changs has been where
is is for yeaars and was there when you chicken-shitted out of meeting a
couple of your critics for lunch, coward.
Flash Bazbo
"Edmond Wollmann" <e...@astroconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:8da057fc.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
>
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<3D357A3...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
> > > insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>
> > > FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message
news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > >>Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi,
right?
>
> > > No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
> > > anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
> > > in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
> > > "proof."
>
> > Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
> > predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After all,
> > how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it even
works?
>
> I understand the scientific method, because I have created my own
> experiments At SDSU, and am a TRUE skeptical scientist, unfettered by
> your dogma.
You don't possess the qualifications to be called a scientist.
There's more to being a scientist than cut and paste posting.
And by the way, didn't you read the "10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained"
by Brad Templeton?
>
> In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
>
> Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
> above connections have different sets of propositions to explain
> results.
>
> We can never PROVE anything beyond a doubt, we can only measure the
> truth premise of inductive logic through confidence intervals and
> tests of significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
> Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
> some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
> it is not flat (in relative terms).
We disproved that the earth is not flat? Wouldn't that make it flat, mr.
logic wizard?
> > > James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> > > cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> > > create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
>
> > Randi is a skeptic not a cynic and you wouldn't have to prove *anything*
>
> I am afraid you are mistaken:
> "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.
>
> Spinic=a negative denigrating harassing fallacious and defective
> "arguer" who attempts to deceive others into believing the idea that
> they have defeated an intelligent argument by name-calling,
> underhanded tactics, lack of integral proactive actions bordering on
> criminal activity, and harassment.
Dude..."spinic" is not a word. Why do you insist on this vanity?
> "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"
Humility is not in your vocabulary. Spinic is.
>
> Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
> fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs"
> (Tuchman, 1984, p. 7).
>
> Anyone with a bit of intelligence, can see Randi is a spinic.
Very few people believe spinic is a word; maybe two, tops.
>
> > to him. The criteria for winning the challenge would be determined in
> > advance and self-evident.
>
> Why do I need to win a spinics challenge? I don't care one speck about
> Randi's delusions of granduer.
Yes you do. It burns inside you and bDan like an unquenchable fire. The
Randi challenge is an obstacle that your fairy tale philosophy cannot
overcome. Randi's reputation is a thorn that torments your fragile ego.
>
> > Assuming you proposed a reasonable criteria that eliminated the
> > possibility of blind luck and ambiguity from polluting the test, I am
> > sure Randi would have no problems with you applying. Everything would be
> > written out and agreed to up front with lawyers so it wouldn't matter if
> > you won but hadn't "proved" it to Randi at the end. The answers would be
> > clear-cut and there to see and you'd still walk home with the cash and
> > lucrative book, tv and lecture rights.
>
> I will teach Randi lessons in science, metaphysics or logic, he has
> nothing to "test" me on.
How about grammar?
> He is not qualified or intelligent enough to
> test me, I cannot be tested by a lower vibration such as this, it is
> simply not possible.
By what method do you perceive the vibrational level of an individual, ed?
Is it like an aura you can see? Or do you have shark-like receptors in your
snout?
>
> > But there's no chance of that happening is there? I guess you're too
> > rich and noble to stoop so low as to use your "skills" for money?
>
> As I have said from the beginning in 1995, I came here to serve and
> serve I am. I am ALWAYS of service. I make money as the product of
> service, not scams.
The service industry doesn't pay much, does it, ed?
>
> > I
> > guess you don't care much for war babies, orphans, sick animals or
> > cancer patients that you could help by donating the million dollars
> > prize. Randi has put his money (and reputation) on the line and all have
> > to do is walk up and claim the prize.
>
> I am not deceived by your garbage.
Is the spinic trying to confuse you with facts again?
> I have overcome the deception of
> the material world, and cannot be stopped or con-fused.
Except by real-ity and gram-mar.
>
> "...Material success..may become the very stumbling block for soul
> development. And no soul enters a material experience just to have a
> good time, or to magnify the ego. For he that is greatest among his
> fellow man is the servant of all with whom he comes in contact..."
> Edgar Cayce "Faults" IRF 3063-1 M.56 6/26/43
Yet you exhibit a bloated ego and unquenchable thirst for recognition.
>
> > There is no fear of that happening is there?
>
> I am truly a case of NO FEAR.
Do you have that on the rear windshield of your car...or used to?
> If there were only ONE TRUTH, there
> would only be, one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths,
> and there are no others.
Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it TRUE.
>
> Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I
> hate.....
Yet exhibit at every opportunity.
> I have good advice and sound wisdom;
But no clients.
> I have insight I have strength.
But no success.
> By me kings reign,
> and rulers decree what is just;
> by me rulers rule, and nobles, all who govern rightly.
> I love those who love me,
> and those who seek me diligently find me.
> I am wisdom.
> Proverbs 8
You really need professional help, ed.
>
> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
> for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
This verse is the more appropriate for you than the previous.
>
> "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
> Proverbs 16:18
Take this one to heart, ed. Really.
Cujo
> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
>
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<3D357A3...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> > metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
>> > insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
AAM & AUK replaced.
>> > FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message
>> > news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> >>Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi,
>> >>right?
>
>> > No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology
>> > to anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is
>> > not in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as
>> > is all "proof."
>
>> Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
>> predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After
>> all, how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it
>> even works?
>
> I understand the scientific method, because I have created my own
> experiments At SDSU, and am a TRUE skeptical scientist, unfettered by
> your dogma.
> NOTHING is ever "proven."
Got some proof of those "experiments"? OOPS, you're suing SDSU! Guess
that rules that out! Funny how you never presented the results if those
"experiments" before this.
> The null hypothesis is disproved or changes in the null hypothesis are
> weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
> whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
> null hypothesis.
It's quite probable that you are a kook, scumbag and a crybaby. I think
that skews the results of your "experiments".
> Theories are made of constructs. Constructs are beliefs and paradigms.
Not quite, they are also derived from data that has been reviewed by
others. Thus it's quite logical to infer that you are a kook.
> Theory=A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or
> HYPOTHETICAL laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a
> hypothesis NOT YET empirically verified as a law, but accepted as the
> basis for experimentation; an exposition of the general or abstract
> principles of any science or humanity which have been DERIVED from
> PRACTICE; a plan or a system SUGGESTED as a METHOD of action; an ideal
> arrangement of events, usu. preceded by in; a doctrine or SCHEME of
> things resting merely on SPECULATION, contemplation, supposition, or
> conjecture!
> Lexicon/Webster, page 1018 #2 of two volume set.
>
> Hypothesis generate theories. Theories generate data to look at.
> Theories exist within paradigms. Paradigms are sets of belief
> assumptions.
But to accept a paradigm where you are an asshole and to reject the
paradigm that you are not an asshole are a paradox. The data suggests
that you *are* an asshole and a kook.
> "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
> "We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
> according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
> however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
> enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn,
> subjective factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the
> universe, enter into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any
> application of scientific principles, in Kuhn's view, is the concept
> of a paradigm, a conceptual framework or approach within which a
> scientist works. A paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic
> assumptions that outline the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC
> ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
> In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
> collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
> facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend
> to a considerable extent on a paradigm.
> University of Southern California", State University of New York"
> Davidson and Neale, 6th edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
>
> In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
To be sure! But your lost accounts present strong proof that you are an
asshole, spammer and abuser. No one else has lost accounts because of
your assertions to the contrary. Thus it is far more likely that you are
the asshole, spammer and abuser than others are.
> Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
> above connections have different sets of propositions to explain
> results.
The results are that you are an asshole, spammer and abuser. HTH!
> We can never PROVE anything beyond a doubt, we can only measure the
> truth premise of inductive logic through confidence intervals and
> tests of significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
> Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
> some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
> it is not flat (in relative terms).
I can prove you are a criminal, dumpster-diving, remorseless child-
killer who kicks small dogs. Get me to court and prove otherwise.
>> > James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
>> > cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
>> > create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
>
>> Randi is a skeptic not a cynic and you wouldn't have to prove
>> *anything*
>
> I am afraid you are mistaken:
> "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge
> without
> integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Publishing private email from five years ago shows your integrity.
> 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.
>
> Spinic=a negative denigrating harassing fallacious and defective
> "arguer" who attempts to deceive others into believing the idea that
> they have defeated an intelligent argument by name-calling,
> underhanded tactics, lack of integral proactive actions bordering on
> criminal activity, and harassment.
>
> "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"
>
> Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
> fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs"
> (Tuchman, 1984, p. 7).
>
> Anyone with a bit of intelligence, can see Randi is a spinic.
>
>> to him. The criteria for winning the challenge would be determined
>> in
>> advance and self-evident.
>
> Why do I need to win a spinics challenge? I don't care one speck about
> Randi's delusions of granduer.
Considering that you mooch off of everyone that you can, you should
finally try to get some income not earned off the sweat of others labor.
Go for it!
>> Assuming you proposed a reasonable criteria that eliminated the
>> possibility of blind luck and ambiguity from polluting the test, I am
>> sure Randi would have no problems with you applying. Everything would
>> be written out and agreed to up front with lawyers so it wouldn't
>> matter if you won but hadn't "proved" it to Randi at the end. The
>> answers would be clear-cut and there to see and you'd still walk home
>> with the cash and lucrative book, tv and lecture rights.
>
> I will teach Randi lessons in science, metaphysics or logic, he has
> nothing to "test" me on. He is not qualified or intelligent enough to
> test me, I cannot be tested by a lower vibration such as this, it is
> simply not possible.
Nice rant, kook!
>> But there's no chance of that happening is there? I guess you're too
>> rich and noble to stoop so low as to use your "skills" for money?
>
> As I have said from the beginning in 1995, I came here to serve and
> serve I am. I am ALWAYS of service. I make money as the product of
> service, not scams.
Great! Serve Susan and pay her back like you promised, deadbeat!
>> I
>> guess you don't care much for war babies, orphans, sick animals or
>> cancer patients that you could help by donating the million dollars
>> prize. Randi has put his money (and reputation) on the line and all
>> have to do is walk up and claim the prize.
>
> I am not deceived by your garbage. I have overcome the deception of
> the material world, and cannot be stopped or con-fused.
You sure haven't let debts stop you! How's that payback of student loans
going?
> "...Material success..may become the very stumbling block for soul
> development. And no soul enters a material experience just to have a
> good time, or to magnify the ego. For he that is greatest among his
> fellow man is the servant of all with whom he comes in contact..."
> Edgar Cayce "Faults" IRF 3063-1 M.56 6/26/43
>
>> There is no fear of that happening is there?
>
> I am truly a case of NO FEAR. If there were only ONE TRUTH, there
> would only be, one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths,
> and there are no others.
Incoherence noted.
Whine Cellar material noted.
Cujo
news:3D3667E4...@kykookman.com:
>
>
> Edmond Wollmann, child killer, wrote:
>>
>> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
>>
>> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3D357A3...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>...
>>
>> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
<snip>
>> I am truly a case of NO FEAR.
>
> Then why didn't you go to lunch at PF CHangs when you were asked to,
> fraidy cat?
>
> And don't give us that fucking lie about Roys. PF Changs has been
> where is is for years and was there when you chicken-shitted out of
> meeting a couple of your critics for lunch, coward.
I even invited Edmo a few times afterwards and he never answered my
invites. What a nadless coward. OOPS! I told him to pay for his own
lunch! Nevermind!
Cardinal Chunder
> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
<rest chopped>
Metapsych readded. There was no abuse as well you know otherwise you
wouldn't have bothered to go on and reply to the post at all would you?
Spàmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Metapsych remkoved, NANAU added because metapsych was added.
Think again, crybaby!
Charlie Fields
> Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
> living.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
In other words, how meaningful can a screed from someone who puts
words in meaningless sequences be?
[snip]
>
> So when we look at the time of birth when the being becomes physical
Becoming a physical being occurs at conception. Did you imagine that
at birth there is a sudden condensation of energy or a coalescense of
random particles into the form of a human being?
[snip]
Eric H. Bowen
> > > James Randi is a spinic, a dogmatic believer in negativity and
> > > cynicism, and doubt. I do not prefer to be negative in that way, or
> > > create that reality. Therefore our realities will not converge.
>
> > Randi is a skeptic not a cynic and you wouldn't have to prove *anything*
>
> I am afraid you are mistaken:
> "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.
>
> Spinic=a negative denigrating harassing fallacious and defective
> "arguer" who attempts to deceive others into believing the idea that
> they have defeated an intelligent argument by name-calling,
> underhanded tactics, lack of integral proactive actions bordering on
> criminal activity, and harassment.
>
> Anyone with a bit of intelligence, can see Randi is a spinic.
I disagree. This is argument by insult. I feel that Mr. Randi's
position is reasonable considering the evidence and information that
he has received to work with.
This is not to say that I believe that Mr. Randi is correct. In point
of fact, I believe that he is wrong. About the existence of God,
about the reality of life after death, about many things. But I do
believe that he could be persuaded by credible evidence. And so that
is my goal: to petition my God to reveal himself in such a manner as
to persuade Mr. Randi and others about the true nature of the universe
and existence.
Some may believe this to be a fools errand. But I believe that God
has said, "You have not because you ask not." So I am asking. And I
have received preliminary indications that God is preparing to grant
my request. Perhaps as soon as two years from now, perhaps in a
lifetime. Regardless, I have determined that I will persist until I
receive the answer I am looking for or something even better.
> > to him. The criteria for winning the challenge would be determined in
> > advance and self-evident.
>
> Why do I need to win a spinics challenge? I don't care one speck about
> Randi's delusions of granduer.
If you believe him to be wrong, then you owe it to him to show him
that he is wrong. That is what I am attempting to do.
> I am truly a case of NO FEAR. If there were only ONE TRUTH, there
> would only be, one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths,
> and there are no others.
But there is only one Truth. If truth be not absolute, then it is not
Truth.
> Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I
> hate.....
> I have good advice and sound wisdom;
> I have insight I have strength.
> By me kings reign,
> and rulers decree what is just;
> by me rulers rule, and nobles, all who govern rightly.
> I love those who love me,
> and those who seek me diligently find me.
> I am wisdom.
> Proverbs 8
>
> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
> for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
> "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
> Proverbs 16:18
Oh, you like proverbs?
"Why is there in the hand of a fool the purchase price of wisdom,
since he has no heart for it?"
--------Eric H. Bowen
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
>> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>> FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
>> No one can "prove" anything to anyone. I can demonstrate astrology to
>> anyone. Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
>> in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--as is all
>> "proof."
>Perhaps your aversion to proof is the straight fact that astrology
>predicts fuck all and shows no inkling of ever being proven. After all,
>how can you prove something that has no evidence to suggest it even works?
If astrology actually _worked_ or did anything that believers in astrology
think and claim it does, believers would be able to present the phenomena
to scientists -- or to magicians. Believers appear to realize that they
believe in unevidenced notions and, as we see with Ed, they try to contrive
elaborate excuses for knowingly believing in nonsense.
That's their right, of course. However Ed also seems to think that he's
allowed to state his unevidence, stupid notions in public without his
intellectual superiors discussing his notions. If he wants a forum where
he doesn't have to face superior intellects, he has to leave Usenet and
start his own cult or something.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
>insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
>FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<uj9o7br...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Xenu allowed e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) to write:
>> >Astrology is an Art/Science that delineates the experience we call
>> >living. It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
>> Since it works you should be able to demonstrate it to James Randi, right?
>No one can "prove" anything to anyone.
You were asked for _evidence_, not proof. I guess your answer is "No,"
you don't have evidence. When you can find evidence for your notions, do
be sure to let the rest of us see it, won't you?
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> metapsych replaced with sci.skeptic. Complaints will ensue if you
>> insist on spamming your "force my beliefs on you" scenario here.
I didn't see this nutter's insane threat since I ignore everything he
posts when he admits he doesn't have evidence for his notions.
>Go ahead, if you insist on being laughed at, kook.
>http://internettrash.com/users/spamster/
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>I understand the scientific method
Why do you refuse to employ it with notions of astrology? Can you tell
me a brief synopsys of what you think the scientific method is? And can
you explain why you refguse to apply it to astrology? Also, are there
any other unevidenced notions that you refuse to apply scientific method
to? What is your criteria for deciding when you will and when you will
not apply scientific method?
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in
>news:8da057fc.02071...@posting.google.com:
>> I can demonstrate astrology to anyone.
One wonders why he doesn't.
>> Whether they accept the evidence and arguments or not is not
>> in my power. That power is in the reality of the observer--
>> as is all "proof."
>Bullshit. I can demonstrate gravity and it works.
Gravity doesn't care whether one believes in it or not for gravitation
to be demonstrable. That because gravity exists. Not only does astrology
not work, there's no mechanism evidenced which would _allow_ for it to
work.
Believers seem to hate the fact that their notions are so easily debunked.
Certainly this Ed character is aware of the fact that his notions are
unevidenced among the educated so he's left trying to demand that astrology
only works for the ignorant.
JB
"Edmond Wollmann" <e...@astroconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:8da057fc.02071...@posting.google.com...
> living.
It works in another worldly sense via archetypal reference,
> expressed in non-physical reality, which is really the template for
> the physical world.
More bullshit.
The physical world is the shadow or reflection of
> this archetypal substream consciousness. In this way the non-physical
> template acts as a springboard or lightsource for beliefs and ideas;
> which is what the entire Multiverse is made of: LIVING LIGHT.
Prove that one, too.
This
> light is the consciousness of "All That Is" or God which is
> manifesting in all the ways it can FOREVER.
> Which part of the ALL shall we deem "BETTER" than another?
The crap goes on, and on, and on...
>
(> Then, these archetypes or ideas as they manifest within the mind of
> "All That Is" are REFLECTED in the physical because the physical is
> the effect of them. The physical is the effect of the mental, not the
> other way around (please see my "Mind/Matter Mirror post). We are a
> part of All That Is, therefore WE are all the ways it has of
> expressing itself. It (ALL THAT IS) expresses itself in an infinite
> array of archetypal configurations (arrangement of ideas basically).
>
> Therefore, when these archetypes manifest the all of physicality they
> carry this pattern of the non-physical template into the physical.
> There is really not any time or space (time and space are illusions,
> real only while you are "in" them and choose to create them) "while"
> this is happening, and so we discovered the idea of synchronicity
> (Carl Jung), which explains WHY it appears that these archetypes
> manifest everywhere ALL AT ONCE, because that is "really" what is
> "happening". Because time and space are illusions and simply EFFECTS
> of physical focus (Saturn), nothing ever really goes anywhere--it only
> changes, and the changes are simply our sequential focus on things
> that are actually existent all at once, right now. Hence, the changing
> of our mind in linear fashion.)
I put this in parenthesis because I wnat to illustrate the ILLUSIONS of
Wollman - I specifically defy him to prove ~ONE~ postulate here.
Idiots like this are the reason my wife is drawn into things like this on a
regular basis.
>
> "Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
> so an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark
> it."Lincoln Barnett, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
>
> So when we look at the time of birth when the being becomes physical
> we are able to see the primal energy sea and its "frozen version"
> (frozen in time that is) reflected SYNCHRONISTICALLY in the heavens
> from this archetypal arrangement in the nonphysical template. Because
> there is no such thing as time/space except when you are focused in it
> (by being physically existent and focused thus) it APPEARS in the
> "moment" that this one vibrational frequency (the timing of the birth
> and corresponding geometric configurations) that reflects the specific
> conglomeration of primal archetypal
(notice the utter nonsense - the spewing of terms not understandable (i.e.,
blending psuedo-scientific language with terms not normally known - or
understood - by the general populace - anyone that has recieved this kind of
crap realises that it's difficult to fight _ people like this count on that.
Sounds good - send the money...) )
at the time then becomes,
> or is reflected in, the being that carries it forth THROUGH time in
> its expressions with will to manifest it in an infinite array of ways.
>
> As the primal energy changes sequentially through time, we are able to
> measure these changes in consciousness by the movement of the planets
> etc. because they reflect these energies by their geometric
> configurations which is the expression of the energy in physicality
> through MATH (deductive logic). Because math is a SPECIFIC FUNCTION of
> the physical world and its mechanistic operations, we experience the
> idea of Deduction. Induction is the reflection of our free will and
> creative force within the DEductive parameters created on the
> unconscious archetypal level.
More CRAP...
>
> "According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from
> any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is
> represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of
> four independent variables-the coordinates of space and time. It is
> just this particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial
> character of physical reality.
> Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of
> physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
> material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of
> motion." Albert Einstein
>
> In other words, Astrology is a way to measure the effects of our
> choice to create time and space and be a being within it while we are
> creating it.
Yeah, It's called freedom of choice...sigh...
Now these choices happen on all levels of our psyche,
> this is why astrology MUST be used in conjunction with psychology,
(don't let the $cientologists hear you say that...
> because we are really measuring the developmental creative processes
> and choices of the person or collective in question when using
> astrology to do so.
Uh, huh... Prove ~THAT~..
>
> "The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
> and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience
> by a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
> Albert Einstein
>
> "I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
> "that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape,
> and extension too are mere apparent qualities."
> "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
There was at first no reason to suspect the good faith of Leibnitz; and it
was not until the appearance in 1704 of an anonymous review of Newton's
tract on quadrature, in which it was implied that Newton had borrowed the
idea of the fluxional calculus from Leibnitz, that any responsible
mathematician questioned the statement that Leibnitz had invented the
calculus independently of Newton. (In 1699 Duillier had accused Leibnitz of
plagiarism from Newton, but Dullier was not a person of much importance) It
is universally admitted that there was no justification or authority for the
statements made in this review, which was rightly attributed to Leibnitz.
But the subsequent discussion led to a critical examination of the whole
question, and doubt was expressed as to whether Leibnitz had not derived the
fundamental idea from Newton. The case against Leibnitz as it appeared to
Newton's friends was summed up in the Commercium Epistolicum issued in 1712,
and detailed references are given for all the facts mentioned.
No such summary (with facts, dates, and references) of the case for Leibnitz
was issued by his friends; but John Bernoulli attempted to indirectly weaken
the evidence by attacking the personal character of Newton; this was in a
letter dated June 7, 1713. The charges were false, and when pressed for an
explanation of them, Bernoulli most solemnly denied having written the
letter. In accepting the denial Newton added in a private letter to him the
following remarks, which are interesting as giving Newton's account of why
he was at last induced to take any part in the controversy. ``I have
never,'' said he, ``grasped at fame among foreign nations, but I am very
desirous to preserve my character for honesty, which the author of that
epistle, as if by the authority of a great judge, had endeavoured to wrest
from me. Now that I am old, I have little pleasure in mathematical studies,
and I have never tried to propagate my opinions over the world, but I have
rather taken care not to involve myself in disputes on account of them.''
One idiot to another, eh?
Your hero sems to have clay feet...hmmmmmm...
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Leibniz/RouseBall/RB_Leibnitz.ht
ml
> So we are the reality it appears we exist within. Therefore, there is
> no MYSTERY WHY it works if you understand these things, because it is
> simply a GIVEN that it would if you can fully comprehend all the
> paradigms that support my assertion and the recognition that it is
> just one aspect of "All That Is" (us as beings) looking back at
> another aspect of itself. It is really an illusion to believe we are
> separate--not that we are one. Therefore, the question as to why it
> works is based on this illusion, and is basically one stemming from a
> lack of awareness, and that is all. It works because we and the
> apparently "outer space" are actually all one thing working in
> synchronous accord and perfect harmony and reflection.
> The Inner Reaches of Outer Space.
>
> Those who hear not the music-
> Think the dancers mad.
As far as I'm concerned, you are...
JB