A challenge: will the real astrologers please stand up?
PZ Myers
find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
of anything).
Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
She could refute my blanket condemnation quite easily by pointing out
some contemporary astrologers who *are* quite smart, and who are using
astrology in rational and defensible ways. Why doesn't she? That's my
challenge. Let's see some argument for and against real, live, genuine
astrological practices.
Every time I mention some objectionable practice by astrologers, I get
a rather weaselly runaround -- that "isn't real astrology", or that
person "isn't an astrologer". There is a constant barrage of excuses
to back away from the most blatant and unambiguous statements: "it's
an anecdote", or there are "other factors". Once we've thrown out all
the claims that astrologers (and 'sceptical astrologers') refuse to
stand by, there doesn't seem to be anything left!
I did a quick search on alt.astrology, for an arbitrarily selected
astrological term: "capricorn". Here's the search URL:
<http://deja.com/=dnc/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=capricorn&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=alt.astrology&authors=&fromdate=oct+1+1999&todate=&showsort=score&maxhits=100>
There were 26 posts returned. Here are short excerpts from just the first 5:
<http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534913250>
Also true about the self-sufficient and good with money stereo-type. Why a
stereotype?Because it seems so often true!
I have moon in capricorn in the 8th.And I am good with money.
<http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535741750>
One thing I learned about earthquakes - is that you don't get any big
ones when Jupiter is transiting sidereal Capricorn.
<http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534987803>
Capricorns are more than the stereotype allows for. They are charming
and smart, with a very dry sense of humor, and even lusty; the women are
especially social.
<http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534907613>
Capricorn Sun & Rising? Whew.... Well, I'm not an expert (but I'm not a
novice either) and I don't completely believe in astrology. But this
person must be very Capricornish. I suppose s/he would be self
sufficiant, good with money, well desciplined, introverted... But of
course there are other astrological factors that must be taken into
consideration.
<http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534644609>
Capricorn, of course represents the down to earth, cautious and
ambitious middle age professional. The father figure. the serious
"down to earth", money making worker: The backbone of the American
Industry.
We've got quite a range here -- general comments about personality, the
effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
any be found anywhere?
--
PZ Myers
Pedantus
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> of anything).
>
> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its
flaws.
<snip>
>
> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
> any be found anywhere?
Well, PZ, it seems you are apparently imitating an intellectual
freeloader of sorts...you want to claim/possess an understanding of
astrology, but like my lazy teenager you won't really put any effort
into it. By the way, most of the "real astrologers" are (for one) on
the ACT (Astrological Conference on Techniques) mailist [
http://thenewage.com/cg/x.dll?p=stuff&sql=G ] . You may access that
list and pose your questions in a civilized manner...but you should
have a better handle on the topic, I would suspect. Your post only here
only examples how little you know and how little effort you are willing
to invest in the name of your *alledged* curiousity. I have nothing
further to say, and won't waste my time with your apparent insincere
approach to *astrological* research...I'm aware that you know full well
how the reasearch of the literture is to be conducted. Astrology does
have its literature; its not Science, but its really literature...and
thus time consumming and rewarding. Don't be such a lazy donkey...take
the course before you pretend to teach it in reverse..:)!
Rog
>
> --
> PZ Myers
>
--
Roger L. Satterlee
July 26, 1950 11:53PM EDT
Elmira, New York 076W49 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406/rog_chrt.gif
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PZ Myers
<peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
You are quite mistaken. I am putting some effort into this. However,
nobody seems to be willing to commit to any consistent stance on
exactly what astrology is, yourself included, and if one is to get a
"better handle on the topic", it certainly would be helpful to know
what the topic might be.
So...are you saying that the 5 posts I excerpted are NOT real
astrology? Or are you just saying that you are unwilling to stick
your neck out and say something that isn't a lot of weebly gobbledygook?
By the way, your conference for "real astrologers" looks just like
alt.astrology, less that gang with the inverted alimentary canals
and facial sphincters. Same ol' yammering over celebrity birth data,
same ol' morbid postdiction about disasters, like the recent London
train crash. Perhaps you could be more specific and say *which* of the
many soft-brained posts on that page is representative of serious,
sincere astrological chat?
--
PZ Myers
Avital Pilpel
> > If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
> > any be found anywhere?
>
> Well, PZ, it seems you are apparently imitating an intellectual
> freeloader of sorts...you want to claim/possess an understanding of
> astrology, but like my lazy teenager you won't really put any effort
> into it.
Don't you love the astrologer's doubletalk?
First, the make all kinds of wonderful claims about how astrology is so
"insightful", "enlightening", etc.
When asked to give the *least* proof for their outlandish claims, all of a
sudden they refuse and tell you to "do your own work".
Evasion noted.
PZ Myers
<Pine.GSO.4.10.991012...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>, Avital
Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
I'm not even asking for proof. I'm just asking for examples of specific
claims that they would stand by as representing a reasonable astrological
viewpoint. Pedantus can't seem to manage even that much.
>
>Evasion noted.
--
PZ Myers
Pedantus
my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> In article <7tvpkk$1q5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Pedantus
> <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> > my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> >> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> >> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> >> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement
directly,
> >> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and
of
> >> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with
much
> >> of anything).
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> >> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its
> >flaws.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
can
> >> any be found anywhere?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, PZ, it seems you are apparently imitating an intellectual
> >freeloader of sorts...you want to claim/possess an understanding of
> >astrology, but like my lazy teenager you won't really put any effort
You can't find what you are not looking for; astrology is first an
art of appreciation, not a science of discrimination.
"I think that in a work of art there is a kind of merging between the
two things, between the precision of poetry and the excitement of pure
science.--Vladimir Nabokov
Rog
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> of anything).
>
> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
> some contemporary astrologers who *are* quite smart, and who are using
> astrology in rational and defensible ways. Why doesn't she? That's my
> challenge. Let's see some argument for and against real, live, genuine
> astrological practices.
>
> Every time I mention some objectionable practice by astrologers, I get
> a rather weaselly runaround -- that "isn't real astrology", or that
> person "isn't an astrologer". There is a constant barrage of excuses
> to back away from the most blatant and unambiguous statements: "it's
> an anecdote", or there are "other factors". Once we've thrown out all
> the claims that astrologers (and 'sceptical astrologers') refuse to
> stand by, there doesn't seem to be anything left!
>
> I did a quick search on alt.astrology, for an arbitrarily selected
> astrological term: "capricorn". Here's the search URL:
>
> We've got quite a range here -- general comments about personality, the
> effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
> earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
> properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
>
> Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
> pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
> are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
> have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
>
> any be found anywhere?
>
Sorry, PZ, it's just not in the stars.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Samuel Powell
/bullshit
I implore each person who even studies astrology to ignore this troll.
Myers will do nothing but rehash and attack upon the astrologers that
respond.
We all know that he is blind and cannot recognise that astrology works
from the INSIDE of a person. It's all a matter of one's own reason for
study... be it for prediction, entertainment, tracing a personality,
weather patterns, relationship problems, whatever, and how one person
interprets it him/herself.
Also, why didn't you post this to a.a.mod? You actually may get some
good play out of this. But I think that the moderators over there have
better taste than to let someone who wears jizznut on their face to
troll around.
Or is it that you are too scared Heather would rip your balls off?
(I know not to mess with her.. she's no fun to fight. she plays rough ;)
roachclip-
studying astrologer
I see things that work with astrology.
And some things that didn't work.
So it's even. Time will help me decide upon it's ultimate conclusion.
All in due time.
--
The requirements on the box said Windows 95 or better.. So I bought a
Macintosh.
PZ Myers
Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>> any be found anywhere?
>>
>Sorry, PZ, it's just not in the stars.
Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
(Samuel Powell) wrote:
[snip]
>I implore each person who even studies astrology to ignore this troll.
>Myers will do nothing but rehash and attack upon the astrologers that
>respond.
Yep. It's a simple question, requiring only simple answers. I've made no
request for evidence, proof, or anecdote...just an unambiguous statement
of your opinion. That lack of ambiguity has you astrologers trembling in
fear, I guess.
>
>We all know that he is blind and cannot recognise that astrology works
>from the INSIDE of a person. It's all a matter of one's own reason for
>study... be it for prediction, entertainment, tracing a personality,
>weather patterns, relationship problems, whatever, and how one person
>interprets it him/herself.
That's two evasive weasels from two 'astrologers' so far.
I've excerpted 5 representative posts from alt.astrology, and asked a
very simple question: is this astrology? No one seems to have the guts
to say a simple "yes" or "no" yet.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Billy Preston
snip
shouldn't you be in class, myers?
Oh, that's right. you got dusted.
my bad.
roachie-
/me raises kilt and flashes pz
OH SHIT!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Monsterous Mouth of PZ
starts sucking like a fish!!!!! He wants what he saw!!!!! <runs and
dives in river headfirst and skulls himself on rocks>
--
Smoke a bone, cut a fish
post from a school account and get yo ass dissed
come home where your old lady kicks your ass
to sit in front of your computer to associate with people with no class
We are so boring and stupid and such
so you decide to go get a dick to suck
and you drink cherry coke and scotch
while your kids dye their heads purple and pierce parts in their crotch.
-Ode to Myers.
Kevin Burnett
blathered:
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>shouldn't you be in class, myers?
>
>Oh, that's right. you got dusted.
>
>my bad.
>
>roachie-
>/me raises kilt and flashes pz
Back into the killfile, morpher.
*PLONK*
--
k...@catnip.org http://www.catnip.org/
"This (besides the fact that as many awards as possible were attempted to
"increase the labling" effect) proves beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that I
am the most powerful intellectual giant to ever grace usenet."
- Edmond Heinz Wollmann, in message <37B292...@bigfoot.com>
Paul Schlyter
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> of anything).
>
> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
claims to be an astrology skeptic, but she seems to enjoy astrology
far too much for being a genuine skeptic.
> She could refute my blanket condemnation quite easily by pointing out
> some contemporary astrologers who *are* quite smart, and who are using
> astrology in rational and defensible ways. Why doesn't she?
cynical: they'd run astrological practices, telling their customers
what they want to hear, and charging a lot from it. However, one
reason there aren't that many cynical smart astrologers is probably
because most of them turn to other, more profitable, businesses, like
e.g. hard drug dealing or prostitution...
> That's my challenge. Let's see some argument for and against real,
> live, genuine astrological practices.
rational and smart uses of astrology. Since you're a cynic, there's
no need to try to defend these uses... :-)))
> Every time I mention some objectionable practice by astrologers, I get
> a rather weaselly runaround -- that "isn't real astrology", or that
> person "isn't an astrologer". There is a constant barrage of excuses
> to back away from the most blatant and unambiguous statements: "it's
> an anecdote", or there are "other factors". Once we've thrown out all
> the claims that astrologers (and 'sceptical astrologers') refuse to
> stand by, there doesn't seem to be anything left!
>
> I did a quick search on alt.astrology, for an arbitrarily selected
> astrological term: "capricorn". Here's the search URL:
> effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
> earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
> properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
>
> Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
> pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
> are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
> have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
> any be found anywhere?
think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
silence, or still more evasions.
Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
well they'll lose any such argument.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <38037C29...@blockspam.mindspring.com>, "Andrew A.
> Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> any be found anywhere?
> >>
>
>
> Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
>
> --
> PZ Myers
My astrological sign is Orion. So what do you think? :-)
PZ Myers
Schlyter) wrote:
[snip]
>Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
>think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
>silence, or still more evasions.
Exactly.
>
>Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
>ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
>irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
>can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
>well they'll lose any such argument.
>
Yes. So if they won't defend their beliefs, I can at least highlight
their cowardice.
--
PZ Myers
astrology
>Yep. It's a simple question, requiring only simple answers. I've made
no
>request for evidence, proof, or anecdote...just an unambiguous
statement
>of your opinion. That lack of ambiguity has you astrologers trembling
in
>fear, I guess.
Myers actually said this:
Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them?
Doesn't matter. Astrologer or not. Same thing in your eyes (other than
nut): "Idiot."
Which of these claims
have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
^^^^^^^
Nailed your lying ass again, motherfucker! That is a request for
validity.
No one seems to have the guts
> to say a simple "yes" or "no" yet.
Yes, you are an asshole.
Yes, that is astrology. Are you that dense?
roachie-
damn, this is fun.
astrology
> That's two evasive weasels from two 'astrologers' so far.
And one from you:
Why did you weasel away when I asked you why you didn't ask in a.a.mod?
I think Heather has bigger balls than you DO have.
roachie-
damn, I have to go to work, unlike this jobless prick Myers.
"we are not kooks, regardless of what this biologist says"
PZ Myers
(astrology) wrote:
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That's two evasive weasels from two 'astrologers' so far.
>
>And one from you:
>
>Why did you weasel away when I asked you why you didn't ask in a.a.mod?
I think this is further confirmation by example (or dare I say "anecdote"?)
that astrologers just aren't very bright.
alt.astrology.MODERATED. It's already been made eminently clear that posts
that question astrology in the slightest will not get past the moderators.
By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
posting headers? Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
because he is such an ignorant, obnoxious ass, and who can't stand the
fact that people find his opinions worthless.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
anonym™
Yawn.
Break out the caffeine.
--
"Why am I an asshole?" -Edmond Wollmann
anonym™
>
SNIP a buch of shit where he finally came up with some DejaNews URL's.
Funny how he's failed to do that in order to support some of his more
vicious and recent unsupported acusations.
Still waiting for him to produce the ones where Rhianna called herself
an airhead.
Where Stella called him a Nazi.
Where a "gang" thought revealing Marsha Kalfsbeek's info was "hilarious".
anonym™
>
> In article
> Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Pedantus wrote:
> >
> >> > any be found anywhere?
> >>
> >> freeloader of sorts...you want to claim/possess an understanding of
> >> astrology, but like my lazy teenager you won't really put any effort
> >> into it.
> >
> >
> >First, the make all kinds of wonderful claims about how astrology is so
> >"insightful", "enlightening", etc.
> >
> >When asked to give the *least* proof for their outlandish claims, all of a
> >sudden they refuse and tell you to "do your own work".
>
> I'm not even asking for proof. I'm just asking for examples of specific
> claims that they would stand by as representing a reasonable astrological
> viewpoint. Pedantus can't seem to manage even that much.
Funny.
We've asked for examples of evidence to support specific
claims you have stood by as representing a reasonable person's
viewpoint. You can't seem to manage even that much.
anonym™
>
> In article <38037C29...@blockspam.mindspring.com>, "Andrew A.
> Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> any be found anywhere?
> >>
>
>
> Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
>
sucking" a cock?
Paul Schlyter
Pedantus <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
> In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
>> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
>> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
>> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
>> of anything).
>>
>> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
>> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its
>> flaws.
>
>
>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>> any be found anywhere?
>
>
> freeloader of sorts...you want to claim/possess an understanding of
> astrology, but like my lazy teenager you won't really put any effort
> the ACT (Astrological Conference on Techniques) mailist [
> http://thenewage.com/cg/x.dll?p=stuff&sql=G ] . You may access that
> list and pose your questions in a civilized manner...but you should
> have a better handle on the topic, I would suspect. Your post only here
> only examples how little you know and how little effort you are willing
> to invest in the name of your *alledged* curiousity. I have nothing
> further to say, and won't waste my time with your apparent insincere
> approach to *astrological* research...I'm aware that you know full well
> how the reasearch of the literture is to be conducted. Astrology does
> have its literature; its not Science, but its really literature...and
> thus time consumming and rewarding. Don't be such a lazy donkey...take
> the course before you pretend to teach it in reverse..:)!
>
PZ Meyers was quite right -- all you presented here was still more
evasions...
Paul Schlyter
> nobody seems to be willing to commit to any consistent stance on
> exactly what astrology is, yourself included, and if one is to get a
> "better handle on the topic", it certainly would be helpful to know
> what the topic might be.
>
> So...are you saying that the 5 posts I excerpted are NOT real
> astrology?
> Or are you just saying that you are unwilling to stick
> your neck out and say something that isn't a lot of weebly gobbledygook?
> By the way, your conference for "real astrologers" looks just like
> alt.astrology, less that gang with the inverted alimentary canals
> and facial sphincters. Same ol' yammering over celebrity birth data,
> same ol' morbid postdiction about disasters, like the recent London
> train crash. Perhaps you could be more specific and say *which* of the
> many soft-brained posts on that page is representative of serious,
> sincere astrological chat?
Paul Schlyter
> Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>>> any be found anywhere?
>
>
> Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
provide information about your person, or about mundane events.
jfred
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> SNIP a buch of shit where he finally came up with some DejaNews URL's.
>
> Funny how he's failed to do that in order to support some of his more
> vicious and recent unsupported acusations.
>
> Still waiting for him to produce the ones where Rhianna called herself
> an airhead.
>
> Where Stella called him a Nazi.
>
> Where a "gang" thought revealing Marsha Kalfsbeek's info was "hilarious".
I'll quote Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> here:
> Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
> think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
> silence, or still more evasions.
I daresay he's right. Lately, PZ has been coming up pretty dry in the
evidence department.
--
jfred... Cahooter #14, WWAS member #4, http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
[Edmo] is the first person ever to use "integrity" to mean "delusional
person without a work ethic." -- A.P. "Why am I an asshole?" -Edmo
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
Loren A. King
> You can't find what you are not looking for; astrology is first an
> art of appreciation, not a science of discrimination.
Appreciation of what? And doesn't appreciation often demand
discrimination?
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Kevin Burnett
[snip]
>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>> posting headers?
>
>Twit? Fuck you.
>
>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
>
>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
>killfiled, cocksuck.
roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
*plonk*
Kevin Burnett
>
>By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>because he is such an ignorant, obnoxious ass, and who can't stand the
>fact that people find his opinions worthless.
Bingo.
PZ Myers
Burnett) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy <roach...@databasix.com>
> blathered:
>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>>> posting headers?
>>
>>Twit? Fuck you.
>>
>>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
>>
>>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
>>killfiled, cocksuck.
>
>roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
>
>*plonk*
Hey, he's not doing it to circumvent killfiles. He just does it because
he likes to, he says.
Likes to *what*, I wonder.
--
PZ Myers
Geneva 12 pt
> >
> >Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
> >killfiled, cocksuck.
>
> roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
>
> *plonk*
oooh cool. yet another plonkie for me. I'm so hurt.
Before you and myers start sucking each other's dicks, be sure to take
it out of here, kevvie.
roachie-
don't like me changing my name?
Tough shit. I like it. Go fuck yourself.
PZ Myers
Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <myers-12109...@ppp79.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <38037C29...@blockspam.mindspring.com>, "Andrew A.
>> Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>>>> any be found anywhere?
>>
>>> Sorry, PZ, it's just not in the stars.
>>
>> Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
>
>No - it was a legitimate non-astrological claim. Astrology just cannot
>provide information about your person, or about mundane events.
Dang. All the legitimate claims seem to be non-astrological. And only
non-astrologers seem to be making intelligent replies to my challenge.
I wonder what that could mean?
--
PZ Myers
Kevin Burnett
<dontlike....@toughshit.tittybaby> blathered:
[nothing worth repeating]
Ninny.
Kevin Burnett
>In article <3803...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, k...@catnip.org (Kevin
>Burnett) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy <roach...@databasix.com>
>> blathered:
>>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>>>> posting headers?
>>>
>>>Twit? Fuck you.
>>>
>>>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
>>>
>>>killfiled, cocksuck.
>>
>>roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>he likes to, he says.
>
>Likes to *what*, I wonder.
He likes to look like a complete fuck-knuckle.
anonym™
>
> In article <3803...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, k...@catnip.org (Kevin
> Burnett) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy <roach...@databasix.com>
> > blathered:
> >>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
> >>> posting headers?
> >>
> >>Twit? Fuck you.
> >>
> >>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
> >>
> >>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
> >>killfiled, cocksuck.
> >
> >roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
> >
> >*plonk*
>
> Hey, he's not doing it to circumvent killfiles. He just does it because
> he likes to, he says.
>
> Likes to *what*, I wonder.
Kick you in the ass while you're blowing a horse.
anonym™
That you have the overwehlming urge to chow down on another man's load?
anonym™
>
> Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
> > >killfiled, cocksuck.
> >
> > roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
>
> Before you and myers start sucking each other's dicks, be sure to take
> it out of here, kevvie.
>
> roachie-
> don't like me changing my name?
>
> Tough shit. I like it. Go fuck yourself.
Kevvie's just pissed because nobody ever pays attention to his boring bullshit.
He got so fucking tedious even I plonked his well-used ass.
Christ, he's so desperate for attention he even shows up on IRC channels
where everone hates his chapped ass.
No one in a.u.k responds or appreciates his crap so now he's looking for
pats on the head here in a.a.
Either that or he and PZ plan to do some 69 action.
Lou Minatti™
>
> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid.
I disagree with this. I see no validity in astrology, but I don't think
that people who believe in it are necessarily stupid. Billions of people
around the world believe in things that have no scientific validity, but
I wouldn't call them all stupid. However, I think that there are a
handful of alt.astrology regulars who are not only stupid, but clearly
insane.
--
WebTV FAQ:
http://www.watchingyou.com/webtv.html
Kevin Burnett
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I remember anonym complaining loudly about PZ Myers sniping at people
from behind his killfile. Now he's doing the *exact* same thing.
What a surprise.
PZ Myers
>PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid.
>
>I disagree with this. I see no validity in astrology, but I don't think
>that people who believe in it are necessarily stupid. Billions of people
>around the world believe in things that have no scientific validity, but
>I wouldn't call them all stupid.
Believing in things that do not have scientific validity doesn't bother
me in the least; accepting something that is so plainly contrary to simple
common sense, and that attempts to cloak itself in the trappings of a science,
is another thing altogether.
>However, I think that there are a
>handful of alt.astrology regulars who are not only stupid, but clearly
>insane.
Uh-oh. You didn't specify who, and give lots and lots of references to
prove your case. Now you're in trouble.
--
PZ Myers
Kevin Burnett
>Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
>>
>> He likes to look like a complete fuck-knuckle.
>
>of person you are fucking with.
>
Oh, I know exactly what kind of person I'md dealing with. A complete
fuck-knuckle, someone who has no idea of how to argue anything, someone
who reaches for fag-lames immediately, who can't resist childish
name-calling. You sound like a clone of that other Usenet busted urinal,
anonym. You drone on, and on, and on, ad nauseum, who drones on, and on,
and on, back at you, PZ Myers. You, anonym, Myers, and your whole crew
deserve each other.
>I know that there are more people here that gives a shit more about how
>I appear to be compared to what you say. And they would correct me in an
>instant if I appeared to be a "fuck-knuckle." I had two e-mails since
>noon. Both of them were about your stupid ass, lame flame stealer.
Aha, the "people support me in email" defense. Sorry, twit, that
doesn't wash. Do you realize that Wollmann, and other kooks,
use that same lame tactic? It should be called the "Nixon" defense.
>
>And like I said before I am in about 1/10 of the killfiles compared to
>myers.
So what?
>
>So take your bitch switch ass and go somewhere where your whining is
>important.
>
>Most everyone else around alt.astrology is sick of you and pz mutually
>oral sexing each other. Especially sick of pz'z stupid fucking changing
>words and dead horse beating.
I'm not reading your horseshit in alt.astrology, pube. If you haven't
noticed, your Usenet solid waste is crossposted to other groups.
And another thing. Do you use your fag-lames due to some latent
homosexuality, or are you a bigot?
Paul Schlyter
Pedantus <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
> In article <myers-12109...@ppp79.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>
>> So...are you saying that the 5 posts I excerpted are NOT real
>> your neck out and say something that isn't a lot of weebly
>> gobbledygook?
>>
>> alt.astrology, less that gang with the inverted alimentary canals
>> and facial sphincters. Same ol' yammering over celebrity birth data,
>> same ol' morbid postdiction about disasters, like the recent London
>> train crash. Perhaps you could be more specific and say *which* of the
>> many soft-brained posts on that page is representative of serious,
>> sincere astrological chat?
>>
>> PZ Myers
>
> You can't find what you are not looking for; astrology is first an
> art of appreciation, not a science of discrimination.
art", and quite often they add e.g. "just like music - do you object
to music?".
If this really was the case, all would be fine and well, since art
forms do not make any verifyable claims. Music certainly doesn't do
that: you can like or dislike some particular piece of music, but
you cannot disagree with it, because music make no such claims.
Astrology, however, make verifyable claims. All astrologers I've
encountered so far, agree on at least one thing: it's important
to use accurate natal data, otherwise the chart will be "invalid".
What is an "invalid chart" in an astrological context? Is it any
less enjoyable as an art form? Certainly not, since even if the
natal data was inaccurate for some person, another person could have
been born with these natal data, and claiming the "invalid chart" for
the first person was unenjoyable as art would imply that the "valid
chart" for that other person would be just as unenjoyable. And then
we have a "valid chart" which isn't enjoyable even though it's valid.
Thus "validity" has nothing whatever to do with enjoyability as an
art form.
However, the most important question is: are we able to distinguish a
"valid chart" from an "invalid chart" ? This has been tested many
times in blind tests, and always with the same result: neither
astrologers, nor subjects are able to distinguish "valid" charts from
"invalid" ones with any greater success rate than if they'd guessed
randomly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is: if you want to enjoy astrology as an art, fine!
Even astronomers do that (e.g. when listening to Gustav Holst's "The
Planets", which is so popular among astronomers that they even named
an asteroid after Holst). But then you'd also have to drop the
requirement of accurate natal data: even if grossly inaccurate natal
data is used, the chart and its interpretation will still be just as
enjoyable as an art form. If you claim any "validity", you've left
the realm of art and entered the realm of science -- and then you'd
better be able to back up your claim with evidence.
Paul Schlyter
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> In article <7tvsrl$sik$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
> Schlyter) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
>> silence, or still more evasions.
>
>
>> Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
>> ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
>> irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
>> can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
>> well they'll lose any such argument.
>
> Yes. So if they won't defend their beliefs, I can at least highlight
> their cowardice.
And that's about all you can do. They'll ignore you, and will happily
go on with their business. Validity and verification is of no concern
to them: they believe in astrology for emotional reasons, and close
their eyes and ears to rational arguments.
I noted an additional evasion in this thread: "Astrology is an art",
which would imply "there's nothing to verify". All would be fine if
astrology really was just an art -- however astrologers still claim
it's important to use accurate natal data. And when they claim this,
they've left the realm of art and entered the realm of science.
I enjoy astrology as an art too -- when I listen to Gustav Holst's
symphonic music piece "The Planets", which was inspired by astorlogy.
It's just as enjoyable, no matter when I was born, and no matter if I
would think I was born on some other date than I actually was born.
anonym™
>
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> > Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> > find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid.
>
> I disagree with this. I see no validity in astrology, but I don't think
> that people who believe in it are necessarily stupid. Billions of people
> around the world believe in things that have no scientific validity, but
> handful of alt.astrology regulars who are not only stupid, but clearly
> insane.
>
As in: "BOOGA BOOGA!"?
J. White
> I'm not even asking for proof. [...]
No you're being a troll.
J. White
...and a dull one
anonym™
>
> In article <3803D1...@yahoo.com>, loumi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >PZ Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> >> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid.
> >
> >I disagree with this. I see no validity in astrology, but I don't think
> >that people who believe in it are necessarily stupid. Billions of people
> >around the world believe in things that have no scientific validity, but
> >I wouldn't call them all stupid.
>
> me in the least; accepting something that is so plainly contrary to simple
> common sense, and that attempts to cloak itself in the trappings of a science,
> is another thing altogether.
>
> >handful of alt.astrology regulars who are not only stupid, but clearly
> >insane.
>
Maybe he meant you, Peezers.
. and give lots and lots of references to
> prove your case.
Uh, where was that done, bonesmoker?
>Now you're in trouble.
Nah.
Lou's so many lightyears away from being an asshole like you there's no
comparison, so stop trying.
Paul Schlyter
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> In article <7u02hg$46o$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
> Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>In article <myers-12109...@ppp79.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <38037C29...@blockspam.mindspring.com>, "Andrew A.
>>> Skolnick" <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>>>>> any be found anywhere?
>>>
>>>> Sorry, PZ, it's just not in the stars.
>>>
>>> Was that an example of a legitimate astrological claim?
>>
>>No - it was a legitimate non-astrological claim. Astrology just cannot
>>provide information about your person, or about mundane events.
>
> Dang. All the legitimate claims seem to be non-astrological. And only
> non-astrologers seem to be making intelligent replies to my challenge.
>
> I wonder what that could mean?
by saying it explicitly...
Ken Anglesea
>In article <3803...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, k...@catnip.org (Kevin
>Burnett) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy <roach...@databasix.com>
>> blathered:
>>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>>>> posting headers?
>>>
>>>Twit? Fuck you.
>>>
>>>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
>>>
>>>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
>>>killfiled, cocksuck.
>>
>>roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>Hey, he's not doing it to circumvent killfiles. He just does it because
>he likes to, he says.
So?.
Unless you can prove he does it to just annoy cetain people.
Show proof,not speculation.
>Likes to *what*, I wonder.
>
>--
>PZ Myers
...
D.R.Ken Anglesea™.Astrocricketologist.
Agnostic Astrologer Call 2995603 .SAN. 92-01766-048.
Neumekenologist™ S.N.I.P. W.W.A.S.#5
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://lart.com/ed/
Ken Anglesea
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
>As in: "BOOGA BOOGA!"?
*******************
I think that there are a
>> handful of alt.astrology regulars who are not only stupid, but clearly
>> insane.
Pz is an alt.astrology regular, isn't he?.
>"Why am I an asshole?" -Edmond Wollmann
>
>http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
>http://lart.com/ed/
Thomas Seers
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <7tvsrl$sik$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
> Schlyter) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
> >think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
> >silence, or still more evasions.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> >Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
> >ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
> >irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
> >can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
> >well they'll lose any such argument.
> >
>
> Yes. So if they won't defend their beliefs, I can at least highlight
> their cowardice.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
I've presented many of your posts to students in class, :), needless
to say they find the fish ( you ) very comical.
Here's a story from last nights class: Katy presented to the class
some insight to astrological mapping. Katy owns property and one piece
falls on her South Node, it's been nothing but problems since she
bought. She filled the class in with the particular problems and
stated she will be selling it. All based on astrological insight.
*Facts*, without fishy blurps.
Thomas
( The interest in astrology just grows, amazing, eat ya heart out )
--
*****************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA
E-mail: Se...@astro-clinic.com
Lebanon, TN 37087
Tel (615) 453-5133 Fax (615) 453-0031
http://www.acelink.net/users/belzar/
*****************************************
Stella
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> of anything).
I have confronted your statement directly. You have made a testable claim,
and I want *you* to prove it. The burden of proof does not lay with me. I
want to see the evidence that backs your claim that all astrology believers
are "stupid" (of low intelligence). Until you can complete this challenge,
I am within my rights to call you a bigot.
For example: If someone claimed that all homosexuals are unintelligent,
they would have to come up with the clear objective evidence to back their
claim. Anybody who disagrees with this claim would *not* have to counter
the claim by finding instances of homosexual individuals who are
intelligent. The claimant would be rightly labelled a bigot, until he
proves his claim.
>
> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
> She could refute my blanket condemnation quite easily by pointing out
> some contemporary astrologers who *are* quite smart, and who are using
> astrology in rational and defensible ways. Why doesn't she? That's my
> challenge. Let's see some argument for and against real, live, genuine
> astrological practices.
>
> Every time I mention some objectionable practice by astrologers, I get
> a rather weaselly runaround -- that "isn't real astrology", or that
> person "isn't an astrologer". There is a constant barrage of excuses
> to back away from the most blatant and unambiguous statements: "it's
> an anecdote", or there are "other factors". Once we've thrown out all
> the claims that astrologers (and 'sceptical astrologers') refuse to
> stand by, there doesn't seem to be anything left!
>
> I did a quick search on alt.astrology, for an arbitrarily selected
> astrological term: "capricorn". Here's the search URL:
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=capricorn&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=alt.astrology&authors=&fromdate=oct+1+1999&todate=&showsort=score&maxhits=100>
>
> There were 26 posts returned. Here are short excerpts from just the first 5:
OK, I will humour you:
BTW, I have not clicked on the reference links, so I do not know who is
involved in quoting what - this is my objective analysis, not dictated by
personal bias.
>
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534913250>
> Also true about the self-sufficient and good with money stereo-type. Why a
> stereotype?Because it seems so often true!
> I have moon in capricorn in the 8th.And I am good with money.
This is a direct comparison of the astrological archetype with reference to
the observed personal experience. It is not a claim of testable truth by
the words "it seems so often true". This is astrology.
>
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535741750>
> One thing I learned about earthquakes - is that you don't get any big
> ones when Jupiter is transiting sidereal Capricorn.
This is a testable claim. The astrologer believes that there is a science
behind the art of astrology which is predictive in nature. This claim
should be tested before accepted as it was intended, and doubted for it's
likelihood of being false. This is testable astrology, and quite possibly
a false claim.
>
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534987803>
> Capricorns are more than the stereotype allows for. They are charming
> and smart, with a very dry sense of humor, and even lusty; the women are
> especially social.
General astrological archetype - not applied to an individual or even which
planet/point within Capricorn. This is astrology.
>
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534907613>
> Capricorn Sun & Rising? Whew.... Well, I'm not an expert (but I'm not a
> novice either) and I don't completely believe in astrology. But this
> person must be very Capricornish. I suppose s/he would be self
> sufficiant, good with money, well desciplined, introverted... But of
> course there are other astrological factors that must be taken into
> consideration.
Explanation of the astrological archetype, not directly applied to an
individual, with the observation that other astrological factors can change
the archetypal expression. This is astrology.
>
> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534644609>
> Capricorn, of course represents the down to earth, cautious and
> ambitious middle age professional. The father figure. the serious
> "down to earth", money making worker: The backbone of the American
> Industry.
Again, a depiction of the Capricorn archetype, not of the Capricorn sun
individual. This is astrology.
>
> We've got quite a range here -- general comments about personality, the
> effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
> earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
> properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
Your above paragraph shows how you misinterpret anything which involves
astrological symbolism - the only thing you got correct was the claim about
the position of Jupiter affecting earthquakes - this is the only testable
claim in the above quotes.
>
> Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
> pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
> are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
> have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
>
> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
> any be found anywhere?
They are all examples of astrology. The single post about earthquakes
should be investigated for it's testable claim - the others are simple
discussion of astrological archetypes, not applied to the individual - much
like the discussion of the symbolism within a piece of modern art.
P.S. It's funny how staying off usenet for a single day, due to the more
exciting concerns of life in general, is gleefully announced as *evasion*
;-)
--
_.----.
* .' .-'`` *
/ / Stella Elphick |
, <x | sceptic astrologer -*-
| _\ -*- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS |
, _\ | [maia...@dtn.ntl.com]
\ \ *
'._ '.__ . >>I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused<<
'----"
Stella
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
> > Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> > find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> > think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> > preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> > driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> > of anything).
> >
> > Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> > of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
>
> Stella has put herself in a position which is a little awkward: she
> claims to be an astrology skeptic, but she seems to enjoy astrology
> far too much for being a genuine skeptic.
Another assumption based on no evidence. Show me where I have employed
astrology in any of my posts. Can I not discuss the concept of a subject
in a non-aggressive manner without being accused of being a practitioner?
How can I enjoy astrology when I do not even practice it? Paul, you have
spent more time dallying with astrology than I ever have, so does that make
you a practitioner and not a genuine sceptic?
<snip>
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Thomas Seers <bel...@acelink.net> wrote in message
news:380467CB...@acelink.net...
> PZ Myers wrote:
> > In article <7tvsrl$sik$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
> > Schlyter) wrote
> > >Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
> > >think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
> > >silence, or still more evasions.
> >
> > Exactly.
> > >Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
> > >ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
> > >irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
> > >can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
> > >well they'll lose any such argument.
> > Yes. So if they won't defend their beliefs, I can at least highlight
> > their cowardice.
> > PZ Myers
Thomas Wrote:
> I've presented many of your posts to students in class, :), needless
> to say they find the fish ( you ) very comical.
> Here's a story from last nights class: Katy presented to the class
> some insight to astrological mapping. Katy owns property and one piece
> falls on her South Node, it's been nothing but problems since she
> bought. She filled the class in with the particular problems and
> stated she will be selling it. All based on astrological insight.
> *Facts*, without fishy blurps.
> Thomas
> ( The interest in astrology just grows, amazing, eat ya heart out )
> *****************************************
> Thomas Seers AMAFA
> E-mail: Se...@astro-clinic.com
> Lebanon, TN 37087
> Tel (615) 453-5133 Fax (615) 453-0031
> http://www.acelink.net/users/belzar/
> *****************************************
When my son came home from a date last night with a new Scorpio lady, he was
sure she had her moon in Sagittarius. He felt it! She made him a great
night, kept his interest going all night, she was intellectual, spiritual,
and funny. (Not to mention 'beeeeeeeyooootiful!'.
When he checked the astrolog on the computer, he had nailed it! She also had
mercury in Sag and this is sitting on his Jupiter! Now he knows who she is.
To top it off, the moon went into Sagittarius around 9:00 PM, while they had
dinner. Oh what a night!!! He is a Libra, and he is so tuned in, he can see
the red flags, and knows what to avoid, thanks to Astrology.
Jo
Thank you Mr. Seers ;-)
His teacher.
jfred
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:03:19 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
> >In article <3803...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, k...@catnip.org (Kevin
> >Burnett) wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy
> >><roach...@databasix.com> blathered:
> >>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
> >>>> posting headers?
> >>>
> >>>Twit? Fuck you.
> >>>
> >>>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
> >>>
> >>>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
> >>>killfiled, cocksuck.
> >>
> >>roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
> >>
> >>*plonk*
> >
> >Hey, he's not doing it to circumvent killfiles. He just does it because
> >he likes to, he says.
>
> So?.
>
> Unless you can prove he does it to just annoy cetain people.
>
> Show proof,not speculation.
Ah -- there's the rub. PZ's amazing paranormal powers keep providing him
with knowledge for which he has no evidence. And while he insists that
everyone else in the world deal only in facts, he loves to spew his own
unfounded assertions with abandon.
--
jfred... Cahooter #14, WWAS member #4, http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
[Edmo] is the first person ever to use "integrity" to mean "delusional
person without a work ethic." -- A.P. "Why am I an asshole?" -Edmo
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
jfred
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> > In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> > PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> > > find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> > > think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> > > preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> > > driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> > > of anything).
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
> > > of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
> >
> > Stella has put herself in a position which is a little awkward: she
> > claims to be an astrology skeptic, but she seems to enjoy astrology
> > far too much for being a genuine skeptic.
>
> Another assumption based on no evidence. Show me where I have employed
> astrology in any of my posts. Can I not discuss the concept of a subject
> in a non-aggressive manner without being accused of being a practitioner?
> How can I enjoy astrology when I do not even practice it? Paul, you have
> spent more time dallying with astrology than I ever have, so does that make
> you a practitioner and not a genuine sceptic?
>
> <snip>
Apparently, the Pauls don't realize that they are attempting to
demonstrate their own paranormal powers. PZ clearly indicated that he
decided what the outcome of his little experiment would be before he
even posted the troll, and these two supposed scientists have filled the
thread with plenty of subjective opinions, but no facts. They also claim
to know the thoughts and motivations of people.
It's the most amazing pseudoscientific thing I've ever seen!
Clitty Switch Hitter
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:47:45 -0500, Chigaco 18 pt <dontlike....@fuck.yo
u.then> blathered:
> >Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> He likes to look like a complete fuck-knuckle.
> >
> >Kind of like you... because obviously you don't know exactly what kind
> >of person you are fucking with.
> >
>
> Oh, I know exactly what kind of person I'md dealing with.
I seriously doubt that, buddy. I really really doubt it.
A complete
> fuck-knuckle, someone who has no idea of how to argue anything,
Wrong. I Just don't see the need to get in to logical debate with a
piece of shit like you. Especially a pussy who can't handle a
"fag-lame"; what the fuck is that? What pussies like you call a homo-
qwote? Too afraid of being a homo so you take offense to some one who is
either parodying or insulting you? What a thin skinned puss.
someone
> who reaches for fag-lames immediately, who can't resist childish
> name-calling. You sound like a clone of that other Usenet busted urinal,
> anonym. You drone on, and on, and on, ad nauseum, who drones on, and on,
> and on, back at you, PZ Myers. You, anonym, Myers, and your whole crew
> deserve each other.
Then why the fuck are you insistently droning on and on to me in this
thread, assfuck?
>
> >I know that there are more people here that gives a shit more about how
> >I appear to be compared to what you say. And they would correct me in an
> >instant if I appeared to be a "fuck-knuckle." I had two e-mails since
> >noon. Both of them were about your stupid ass, lame flame stealer.
>
> Aha, the "people support me in email" defense. Sorry, twit, that
> doesn't wash.
Um.. lets see. Whatever. I know nym supports me coz he's my
homeslice...and he kicked your ass too. Others would but they know that
you're just a boring faggot shithead and are not worth the time.
Do you realize that Wollmann, and other kooks,
> use that same lame tactic? It should be called the "Nixon" defense.
<shlorp> and <handwring> ought to be yours and myers' defenses
ah ah, I didn't say you could talk. Shut your mouth.
> >And like I said before I am in about 1/10 of the killfiles compared to
> >myers.
>
> So what?
Did kevvie feel bad because I am that popular? <tosses hair>
> >
> >So take your bitch switch ass and go somewhere where your whining is
> >important.
> >
> >Most everyone else around alt.astrology is sick of you and pz mutually
> >oral sexing each other. Especially sick of pz'z stupid fucking changing
> >words and dead horse beating.
>
> I'm not reading your horseshit in alt.astrology, pube. If you haven't
> noticed, your Usenet solid waste is crossposted to other groups.
Not by me it isn't. I follow where others send them.. and in fact, why
didn't YOU shut the shit up? I see you xposting back to alt.astrology
with a whole host of other groups I never go to,
SO shut the fuck up, switch hitter (and I don't mean clitoris switch)
> And another thing. Do you use your fag-lames due to some latent
> homosexuality, or are you a bigot?
Used to be latent.. then I unleashed it and decided that faggotry was
not for me. I am now just like pz'z dick down your throat- straight.
Now I just do it in fun and jest, mainly because it pisses you off.
roachie-
<plonk??> Maybe...
PZ Myers
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:03:19 -0400, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>In article <3803...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, k...@catnip.org (Kevin
>>Burnett) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:09:31 -0500, astroachieogy <roach...@databasix.com>
>>> blathered:
>>>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>> By the way -- what kind of twit feels the need to constantly change his
>>>>> posting headers?
>>>>
>>>>Twit? Fuck you.
>>>>
>>>>>Answer: one who has been killfiled by numerous people
>>>>
>>>>Yeah about a tenth the amount of people who have your idiot ass
>>>>killfiled, cocksuck.
>>>
>>>roachclip the stupid twit's morph number 65536 into the killfile.
>>>
>>>*plonk*
>>
>>Hey, he's not doing it to circumvent killfiles. He just does it because
>>he likes to, he says.
>
>So?.
>
>Unless you can prove he does it to just annoy cetain people.
What the heck are you babbling about now, O Illiterate One?
I said, he's NOT doing it to circumvent killfiles -- he's just doing
it because he likes to, just exactly as he has claimed before.
Do you have some objection to my making a comment that agrees with him?
OK, you must know better than I. I was wrong. He is doing it to circumvent
killfiles, then.
Happy now?
PZ Myers
<maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>> > find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
>> > think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
>> > preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
>> > driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
>> > of anything).
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
>> > of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
>>
>> Stella has put herself in a position which is a little awkward: she
>> claims to be an astrology skeptic, but she seems to enjoy astrology
>> far too much for being a genuine skeptic.
>
>Another assumption based on no evidence. Show me where I have employed
>astrology in any of my posts. Can I not discuss the concept of a subject
>in a non-aggressive manner without being accused of being a practitioner?
>How can I enjoy astrology when I do not even practice it? Paul, you have
>spent more time dallying with astrology than I ever have, so does that make
>you a practitioner and not a genuine sceptic?
>
><snip>
I've left in your big ol' 10-line sig below:
>
>--
>
> _.----.
> * .' .-'`` *
> / / Stella Elphick |
> , <x | sceptic astrologer -*-
> | _\ -*- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS |
> , _\ | [maia...@dtn.ntl.com]
> \ \ *
> '._ '.__ . >>I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused<<
> '----"
You've got this overblown sig with stars and a moon it, proudly tagging
yourself an astrologer, even though you do add the weasely "sceptic" to it...
and you object to someone saying you "enjoy astrology too much"? You deny
ever employing astrology in your posts? You advertise it with every post,
and if you look at your posting history, you aren't a critic at all -- you're
a consistent defender of astrology!
--
PZ Myers
Dina O'Grogan
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
[---]
> But then you'd also have to drop the
> requirement of accurate natal data
I've seen just exactly that seriously argued: you see, even if the data you
erect the chart on is inaccurate, the fact that you were given **that
particular set** of inaccurate data is *itself* significant, so your
intepretation will be meaningful *too*...
At this point, as you may well imagine, the joss stick of --- what else? ---
'synchronicity' was set alight and waved around the argument ('That old
acausal connecting principle has me in its spell, That old acausal connecting
principle I love so well'...) and *then* by golly all the pieces came
together, for one reader at least! Scales fell from my eyes, too...
I don't positively recall whether the author went ahead and introduced the
word 'quantum' at this stage; but, what would have held him back?
~D~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Schlyter
>> Schlyter) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Do you really expect to get any serious responses to this? I don't
>>> think you'll get them. You cna expect one of two things: either
>>> silence, or still more evasions.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>> Remember that since astrology has been shown to be invalid centuries
>>> ago, people who want to believe in astrology today do it for
>>> irrational reasons. It's not surprising that they do whatever they
>>> can to avoid getting into a rational argument, because they know very
>>> well they'll lose any such argument.
>>
>>
>> Yes. So if they won't defend their beliefs, I can at least highlight
>> their cowardice.
>>
>> PZ Myers
>
> I've presented many of your posts to students in class, :), needless
> to say they find the fish ( you ) very comical.
> Here's a story from last nights class: Katy presented to the class
> some insight to astrological mapping. Katy owns property and one piece
> falls on her South Node, it's been nothing but problems since she
> bought. She filled the class in with the particular problems and
> stated she will be selling it. All based on astrological insight.
> *Facts*, without fishy blurps.
pice on her "south node". It's certainly *not*a*fact* that there is
any causal relation, or even a correlation, between the two (to get a
correlation, it's not enough to get one or two coincidences: you must
get coincidences repeatedly, at a rate significantly larger than
expected by chance).
You're utilizing the "lottery effect" here: remember the "winners"
and forget the "losers". Or, to be more specific, any coincidence
between some mundane event and a suitable planetary configuration
you'll take as "proof", or "fact" that astrology works, while at the
same time you silently ignore any non-coincidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And you didn't provide any examples of what you consider "valid
astrology" or "good astrologer". Why are you and your fellows so
very evasive on this point? No, you don't need to answer, I know
already: by being evasive, you believe you can avoid being refuted....
Paul Schlyter
Stella <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <myers-12109...@ppp77.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>>> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
>>> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
>>> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
>>> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
>>> of anything).
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to want to talk about the specifics
>>> of astrology, perhaps because then she'd have to face all of its flaws.
>>
>> Stella has put herself in a position which is a little awkward: she
>> claims to be an astrology skeptic, but she seems to enjoy astrology
>> far too much for being a genuine skeptic.
>
> Another assumption based on no evidence. Show me where I have employed
> astrology in any of my posts.
> Can I not discuss the concept of a subject in a non-aggressive manner
> without being accused of being a practitioner?
> How can I enjoy astrology when I do not even practice it? Paul, you have
> spent more time dallying with astrology than I ever have, so does that make
> you a practitioner and not a genuine sceptic?
Paul Schlyter
Stella <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
> PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
>> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
>> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
>> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
>> of anything).
>
> I have confronted your statement directly. You have made a testable claim,
to "find someone stupid" and to claim that person actually *is* stupid.
I hope you're intelligent enough to understand that.
> and I want *you* to prove it. The burden of proof does not lay with me.
> I want to see the evidence that backs your claim that all astrology believers
> are "stupid"
That's an opinion, not a testable claim. It's like saying e.g. "I
find you beautiful" --- how would you test THAT, scientifically?
> (of low intelligence). Until you can complete this challenge,
> I am within my rights to call you a bigot.
difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid! Remember, we also have the
cynics, who exploit the stupidity of others, by charging them for their
worthless advice... :-))))
> For example: If someone claimed that all homosexuals are unintelligent,
> they would have to come up with the clear objective evidence to back their
> claim.
said he found all homosexuals unintelligent, there would be no claim to
back up, since he merely did express an opinion. It could be that all
homosexuals he had encountered *were* stupid, and he then made the
mistake of making a general conclusion from only a few cases.
> Anybody who disagrees with this claim would *not* have to counter
> the claim by finding instances of homosexual individuals who are
> intelligent.
want some other OPINIONS to be backed up,a s if they were claims?
> The claimant would be rightly labelled a bigot, until he
> proves his claim.
not be proved, since only the holder of an opinion knows what (s)he thinks.
.............
>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534913250>
>> Also true about the self-sufficient and good with money stereo-type. Why a
>> stereotype?Because it seems so often true!
>> I have moon in capricorn in the 8th.And I am good with money.
>
> This is a direct comparison of the astrological archetype with reference to
> the observed personal experience. It is not a claim of testable truth by
> the words "it seems so often true". This is astrology.
>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535741750>
>> One thing I learned about earthquakes - is that you don't get any big
>> ones when Jupiter is transiting sidereal Capricorn.
>
> This is a testable claim. The astrologer believes that there is a science
> behind the art of astrology which is predictive in nature. This claim
> should be tested before accepted as it was intended, and doubted for it's
> likelihood of being false. This is testable astrology, and quite possibly
> a false claim.
>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534987803>
>> Capricorns are more than the stereotype allows for. They are charming
>> and smart, with a very dry sense of humor, and even lusty; the women are
>> especially social.
>
> General astrological archetype - not applied to an individual or even which
> planet/point within Capricorn. This is astrology.
individuals of this sign?
>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534907613>
>> Capricorn Sun & Rising? Whew.... Well, I'm not an expert (but I'm not a
>> novice either) and I don't completely believe in astrology. But this
>> person must be very Capricornish. I suppose s/he would be self
>> sufficiant, good with money, well desciplined, introverted... But of
>> course there are other astrological factors that must be taken into
>> consideration.
>
> Explanation of the astrological archetype, not directly applied to an
> individual, with the observation that other astrological factors can change
> the archetypal expression. This is astrology.
individuals of this sign?
>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534644609>
>> Capricorn, of course represents the down to earth, cautious and
>> ambitious middle age professional. The father figure. the serious
>> "down to earth", money making worker: The backbone of the American
>> Industry.
>
> Again, a depiction of the Capricorn archetype, not of the Capricorn sun
> individual. This is astrology.
individuals of this sign?
>> We've got quite a range here -- general comments about personality, the
>> effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
>> earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
>> properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
>
> Your above paragraph shows how you misinterpret anything which involves
> astrological symbolism - the only thing you got correct was the claim about
> the position of Jupiter affecting earthquakes - this is the only testable
> claim in the above quotes.
way related to the actual personalities of people of that sign? I.e.
are they just literature?
>> Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
>> pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
>> are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
>> have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
>>
>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>> any be found anywhere?
>
> They are all examples of astrology. The single post about earthquakes
> should be investigated for it's testable claim - the others are simple
> discussion of astrological archetypes, not applied to the individual - much
> like the discussion of the symbolism within a piece of modern art.
>
> P.S. It's funny how staying off usenet for a single day, due to the more
> exciting concerns of life in general, is gleefully announced as *evasion*
> ;-)
Stella
PZ Myers wrote:
<snip>
>
> I've left in your big ol' 10-line sig below:
>
> >
> >--
> >
> > _.----.
> > * .' .-'`` *
> > / / Stella Elphick |
> > , <x | sceptic astrologer -*-
> > | _\ -*- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS |
> > , _\ | [maia...@dtn.ntl.com]
> > \ \ *
> > '._ '.__ . >>I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused<<
> > '----"
>
> You've got this overblown sig with stars and a moon it,
So you think that stars and the moon are the domain of astrology? I'm sure
astronomers and the rest of the world which appreciates such things would
disagree.
> proudly tagging
> yourself an astrologer,
I call myself an astrologer because I know of the subject - I no longer
cast charts however. I'm actually fully trained as a photographer, I can
call myself a photographer even though I do not take photographs as my
profession.
> even though you do add the weasely "sceptic" to it...
> and you object to someone saying you "enjoy astrology too much"?
I do when it is used as an excuse for saying that I'm not a genuine
sceptic.
> You deny
> ever employing astrology in your posts? You advertise it with every post,
> and if you look at your posting history, you aren't a critic at all -- you're
> a consistent defender of astrology!
I am a defender of astrology believers. I used to be one, so I am well
aware that they are not all stupid, or dishonest con men. I admit I think
that delusion plays a part in the belief in astrology - but many people are
deluded. Some are even under the illusion that they are clearly more
intelligent than a whole host of others.
Look again at my sig, "I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused".
It says it all. I *enjoy* the artistry in symbolism, I feel there is no
need for astrology to be scientifically validated before people can allow
themselves to enjoy it. And before Paul Schlyter can ask - no, there is no
need for accurate birth-data if this is how you wish to treat astrology,
but making the chart uniquely tied to the individual makes astrology so
much more *fun*.
Stella
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <3804760C...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>,
> Stella <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>
> > PZ Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
> >> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
> >> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
> >> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
> >> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
> >> of anything).
> >
> > I have confronted your statement directly. You have made a testable claim,
>
> No he didn't -- he merely expressed an opinion. It's different
> to "find someone stupid" and to claim that person actually *is* stupid.
> I hope you're intelligent enough to understand that.
Sorry, Paul. PZ and I have already established this. He *does* think all
astrologers are stupid.
I put to him:
"You realize that you have made a testable claim, perhaps you would like to
prove that astrology believers really have markedly lower IQ levels? Or
perhaps you have some evidence to back your claim ready and waiting for my
perusal?"
To which PZ replied:
"That is a slightly interesting idea you've had there -- yes, it is a
testable claim.
The basis of my belief is from personal experience."
He has admitted that he thinks his belief is a *prediction* of reality. He
is sure that his assertion is correct:
"I do think it would have results in accordance with *my* assertion" - PZ
Myers
>
> > and I want *you* to prove it. The burden of proof does not lay with me.
>
> Are you trying to play eht "I won't prove thus until you prove that" game?
Are you trying to say that he should not be encouraged to back his claims
with evidence?
>
> > I want to see the evidence that backs your claim that all astrology believers
> > are "stupid"
>
> He never claimed that -- he just claimed he found them stupid.
> That's an opinion, not a testable claim. It's like saying e.g. "I
> find you beautiful" --- how would you test THAT, scientifically?
Intelligence *can* be tested scientifically.
>
> > (of low intelligence). Until you can complete this challenge,
> > I am within my rights to call you a bigot.
>
> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
and that testing would prove his assertion.
>
> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
<snip>
>
> >> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534913250>
> >> Also true about the self-sufficient and good with money stereo-type. Why a
> >> stereotype?Because it seems so often true!
> >> I have moon in capricorn in the 8th.And I am good with money.
> >
> > This is a direct comparison of the astrological archetype with reference to
> > the observed personal experience. It is not a claim of testable truth by
> > the words "it seems so often true". This is astrology.
>
> Is it a good or a bad example of astrology? I.e. is it valid or not, as astrology?
It is valid astrology, but astrology may not be valid.
>
> >> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535741750>
> >> One thing I learned about earthquakes - is that you don't get any big
> >> ones when Jupiter is transiting sidereal Capricorn.
> >
> > This is a testable claim. The astrologer believes that there is a science
> > behind the art of astrology which is predictive in nature. This claim
> > should be tested before accepted as it was intended, and doubted for it's
> > likelihood of being false. This is testable astrology, and quite possibly
> > a false claim.
>
> Is it a good or a bad example of astrology? I.e. is it valid or not, as astrology?
It is valid as astrology *if* the testable claim is backed by evidence,
otherwise it is completely invalid and a waste of astrologers' and
sceptics' time.
>
> >> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534987803>
> >> Capricorns are more than the stereotype allows for. They are charming
> >> and smart, with a very dry sense of humor, and even lusty; the women are
> >> especially social.
> >
> > General astrological archetype - not applied to an individual or even which
> > planet/point within Capricorn. This is astrology.
>
> Is an archetype in any way related to the average personality of a large number of
> individuals of this sign?
I would imagine that the archetype is meant to be representative of the
average personality of a large number of individuals who have Capricorn as
a predominant influence. For example a stellium in Capricorn, or Capricorn
rising, Sun or Moon. Or even a powerful Saturn or tenth house (Saturn is
the ruling planet of Capricorn and the tenth house).
The personality of the archetype would only be expected to be observed in
individuals with a heavy Saturn/Capricorn/tenth house influence.
<snip>
PZ Myers
<maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>
>The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
>and that testing would prove his assertion.
>
>>
>> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
>
>It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
It's true. We disagree a wee bit on this.
Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
the latter are inconsequential.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
>PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> Stella objects to the fact that I have unequivocally stated that I
>> find astrology and astrologers to be painfully stupid. She seems to
>> think I am wrong, but doesn't want to confront my statement directly,
>> preferring to skirt about the edges and accuse me of bigotry, and of
>> driving a car (don't ask me what that latter bit has to do with much
>> of anything).
>
>I have confronted your statement directly. You have made a testable claim,
>and I want *you* to prove it. The burden of proof does not lay with me. I
>want to see the evidence that backs your claim that all astrology believers
>are "stupid" (of low intelligence). Until you can complete this challenge,
>I am within my rights to call you a bigot.
Hey, it's within your rights to call me anything you want.
>
>For example: If someone claimed that all homosexuals are unintelligent,
>they would have to come up with the clear objective evidence to back their
>claim. Anybody who disagrees with this claim would *not* have to counter
>the claim by finding instances of homosexual individuals who are
>intelligent. The claimant would be rightly labelled a bigot, until he
>proves his claim.
Ah, but if I were confronted with somebody making that claim about
homosexuals, the first counterargument I'd make would be to bring up
*examples* of brilliant homosexuals. It's so easy, and so definitive.
Instead, you've chosen to take this bizarre and circuitous approach,
dragging in religion and racism and mass transit, and pretty much doing
everything you can to avoid discussing astrology and astrologers. Why?
[rest snipped -- all the same. It's astrology, they're about archetypes,
not individuals]
>
>>
>> We've got quite a range here -- general comments about personality, the
>> effect of Jupiter's position relative to distant stars influencing
>> earthquakes, and even a long post attempting to describe the general
>> properties of an entire country from its 'birthdate'.
>
>Your above paragraph shows how you misinterpret anything which involves
>astrological symbolism - the only thing you got correct was the claim about
>the position of Jupiter affecting earthquakes - this is the only testable
>claim in the above quotes.
Sweeping claims about about the frequency of certain character types aren't
testable? Why not?
>
>>
>> Here's another challenge for Stella, or any astrologers. These are
>> pretty representative posts from alt.astrology. Which of these authors
>> are "real astrologers"? Any of them? All of them? Which of these claims
>> have any validity at all? Any of them? All of them?
>>
>> If none of these statements are acceptable examples of astrology, can
>> any be found anywhere?
>
>They are all examples of astrology. The single post about earthquakes
>should be investigated for it's testable claim - the others are simple
>discussion of astrological archetypes, not applied to the individual - much
>like the discussion of the symbolism within a piece of modern art.
I see "archetype" is the new fashionable weasel word.
Again, you are making false and unfounded distinctions. The quotes about
Capricorn and personality were NOT about "archetypes", no matter how much
you claim they are. This is an irrational argument on many levels.
A) "Archetypes" does not excuse anything. If a racist claims that he isn't
talking about individuals, but instead some abstract racial "archetype",
does that make it all OK?
B) The examples given were most emphatically NOT about some nebulous archetype,
and if you read this class of posts on alt.astrology, the authors are using
these ideas to describe real people, and are busily assigning some level
of 'empirical' reality to their characterizations. The initial post in that
thread <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=533448522> asked, "What woulod be
typical of a Cap rising and Cap sun?". That's a concrete question, and the
respondents were clearly answering it by saying what to expect of most
Capricorn *individuals*.
C) You seem to want to make an invalid distinction between a post that makes
a prediction about earthquakes, and posts that make predictions about
personality. There is no a priori reason to do that. Both are testable.
Neither is based on any real data (at least, no astrologer ever seems to
be able to step forward with any data), and neither has any rational under-
lying mechanism. You are again expressing a personal, subjective opinion
about these two kinds of predictions, and reaching desperately for excuses
to distinguish them.
You are weaseling again. Talking about "symbolism" and "archetypes" does
not salvage the astrologers from the reality of what they are doing:
stereotyping real people on the basis of inappropriate and arbitrary
data, their birthdate. They are also doing something you claimed real
astrologers do not do -- using sloppy sun sign astrology to make predictions
about broad trends in groups of people.
>
>P.S. It's funny how staying off usenet for a single day, due to the more
>exciting concerns of life in general, is gleefully announced as *evasion*
>;-)
Huh? Where did I say you were evasive because you didn't respond in X minutes?
Take your time, I'm in no hurry.
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <myers-13109...@ppp124.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <3804FE81...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>, Stella
>> <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>>>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>>>
>>> The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
>>> and that testing would prove his assertion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
>>>
>>> It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
>>
>> It's true. We disagree a wee bit on this.
>>
>> Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
>> that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
>> are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
>>
>> Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
>> that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
>> the latter are inconsequential.
>
>Do you really consider it OPTIMISM to believe everyone is a MORON ????
When the alternative is to believe that they are dishonest scoundrels,
yes. I'd rather think that they were ignorant dullards who are a victim
of a lot of wishful thinking than that they are charlatans.
>
>Nevertheless, it seems here you've backed away somewhat from your earlier
>claim that every astrologer, without exception, is stupid....
Oh, not really. I have an *extremely* low opinion now of anyone and everyone
who expresses a belief in astrology. Can you think of a counterexample? Is
there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose opinion you
would respect? I can't. I most particularly haven't encountered such an
astrological paragon on usenet.
--
PZ Myers
jfred
> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
>
There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
Or did you misspell "idiot?"
anonym™
>
> In article <3804FE81...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>, Stella
> <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
> >
> >The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
> >and that testing would prove his assertion.
> >
> >>
> >> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
> >
> >It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
>
>
> Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
> that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
> are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
>
> Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
> that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
> the latter are inconsequential.
>
Shit. How'd you get to be both, dickbreath?
--
anonym™
>
> PZ Myers wrote:
>
> >Schlyter) wrote:
>
> >>Do you really consider it OPTIMISM to believe everyone is a MORON ????
>
>
> >When the alternative is to believe that they are dishonest scoundrels,
> >yes. I'd rather think that they were ignorant dullards who are a victim
> >of a lot of wishful thinking than that they are charlatans.
> >
> >>Nevertheless, it seems here you've backed away somewhat from your earlier
> >>claim that every astrologer, without exception, is stupid....
> >
> >Oh, not really. I have an *extremely* low opinion now of anyone and everyone
> >who expresses a belief in astrology. Can you think of a counterexample? Is
> >there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose opinion you
> >would respect? I can't. I most particularly haven't encountered such an
> >astrological paragon on usenet.
>
What is his wife not providing that keeps him addicted to Usenet?
Paul Schlyter
>
>> I've left in your big ol' 10-line sig below:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _.----.
>>> * .' .-'`` *
>>> / / Stella Elphick |
>>> , <x | sceptic astrologer -*-
>>> | _\ -*- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS |
>>> , _\ | [maia...@dtn.ntl.com]
>>> \ \ *
>>> '._ '.__ . >>I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused<<
>>> '----"
>>
>
> So you think that stars and the moon are the domain of astrology? I'm sure
> astronomers and the rest of the world which appreciates such things would
> disagree.
of astronomy, how come you label yourself "sceptic astrologer" rather
than e.g. "skeptical astronomer" ????
>> proudly tagging
>> yourself an astrologer,
>
> I call myself an astrologer because I know of the subject - I no longer
> cast charts however.
yourself "astrologer", because if you give yourself that label, many
people will believe you still cast charts. Do you want them to
believe that?
> I'm actually fully trained as a photographer, I can call myself a
> photographer even though I do not take photographs as my profession.
limits: if you label yourself as something which requires a license,
or an examination, which you don't have, then you may get in trouble).
But if you want to label yourself something which isn't misleading,
then you should be more careful. You're not an astrologer anymore
since you no loinger cast charts. You are a former astrologer though,
as well as a former photography student.
>> even though you do add the weasely "sceptic" to it...
>> and you object to someone saying you "enjoy astrology too much"?
>
> I do when it is used as an excuse for saying that I'm not a genuine
> sceptic.
though you no longer practice astrology ???
>> You deny ever employing astrology in your posts? You advertise it
>> with every post, and if you look at your posting history, you aren't
>> a critic at all -- you're a consistent defender of astrology!
>
> I am a defender of astrology believers. I used to be one, so I am well
> aware that they are not all stupid, or dishonest con men. I admit I think
> that delusion plays a part in the belief in astrology - but many people are
> deluded. Some are even under the illusion that they are clearly more
> intelligent than a whole host of others.
> Look again at my sig, "I'm not a woo-woo, I'm just semiotically aroused".
> It says it all. I *enjoy* the artistry in symbolism,
are lots and lots of symbols in other areas as well....
> I feel there is no need for astrology to be scientifically validated
> before people can allow themselves to enjoy it.
an art. Unfortunately, many people believe it's more than an art:
they believe it's a source of genuine information....
> And before Paul Schlyter can ask - no, there is no need for accurate
> birth-data if this is how you wish to treat astrology, but making the
> chart uniquely tied to the individual makes astrology so much more *fun*.
Or did you really stop doing it? You're just not saying you stopped
doing it?
Paul Schlyter
Dina O'Grogan <kle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <7u0hv8$fo1$1...@merope.saaf.se>,
> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> [---]
>> But then you'd also have to drop the
>> requirement of accurate natal data
>
> I've seen just exactly that seriously argued: you see, even if the data you
> erect the chart on is inaccurate, the fact that you were given **that
> particular set** of inaccurate data is *itself* significant, so your
> intepretation will be meaningful *too*...
chart reading if the natal data is accurate; but it is important that
they are BELIEVED to be accurate. This essentially makes astrology a
religion, and it also explains why astrology fails blind tests.
> At this point, as you may well imagine, the joss stick of --- what else? ---
> 'synchronicity' was set alight and waved around the argument ('That old
> acausal connecting principle has me in its spell, That old acausal connecting
> principle I love so well'...) and *then* by golly all the pieces came
> together, for one reader at least! Scales fell from my eyes, too...
>
> I don't positively recall whether the author went ahead and introduced the
> word 'quantum' at this stage; but, what would have held him back?
misused quantum physics....
Paul Schlyter
>
>> No he didn't -- he merely expressed an opinion. It's different
>> to "find someone stupid" and to claim that person actually *is* stupid.
>> I hope you're intelligent enough to understand that.
>
> Sorry, Paul. PZ and I have already established this. He *does* think all
> astrologers are stupid.
>
> I put to him:
>
> "You realize that you have made a testable claim, perhaps you would like to
> prove that astrology believers really have markedly lower IQ levels? Or
> perhaps you have some evidence to back your claim ready and waiting for my
> perusal?"
>
> To which PZ replied:
>
> "That is a slightly interesting idea you've had there -- yes, it is a
> testable claim.
>
> The basis of my belief is from personal experience."
>
> He has admitted that he thinks his belief is a *prediction* of reality. He
> is sure that his assertion is correct:
>
> "I do think it would have results in accordance with *my* assertion" - PZ
> Myers
single exception? That's a pretty strong claim, which almost certainly
is false.
However, one could ask around among hi-IQ people, if they believe in
astrology. Try for instance to get in touch with Mensa, an
association of hi-IQ people (www.mensa.org), and ask them how many of
their members believe in astrology...
>>> and I want *you* to prove it. The burden of proof does not lay with me.
>>
>
> Are you trying to say that he should not be encouraged to back his claims
> with evidence?
your claims first, because then he's got no excuse to not try to
prove his claims.
>>> I want to see the evidence that backs your claim that all astrology
>>> believers are "stupid"
>>
>> He never claimed that -- he just claimed he found them stupid.
>> That's an opinion, not a testable claim. It's like saying e.g. "I
>> find you beautiful" --- how would you test THAT, scientifically?
>
> Intelligence *can* be tested scientifically.
the same as IQ ???
>>> (of low intelligence). Until you can complete this challenge,
>>> I am within my rights to call you a bigot.
>>
>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>
> The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
> and that testing would prove his assertion.
astrologer somewhere who isn't stupid.
>>>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535741750>
>>>> One thing I learned about earthquakes - is that you don't get any big
>>>> ones when Jupiter is transiting sidereal Capricorn.
>>>
>>> This is a testable claim. The astrologer believes that there is a science
>>> behind the art of astrology which is predictive in nature. This claim
>>> should be tested before accepted as it was intended, and doubted for it's
>>> likelihood of being false. This is testable astrology, and quite possibly
>>> a false claim.
>>
>> Is it a good or a bad example of astrology? I.e. is it valid or not, as astrology?
>
> It is valid as astrology *if* the testable claim is backed by evidence,
> otherwise it is completely invalid and a waste of astrologers' and
> sceptics' time.
description of reality, of course. But would it then also
automatically be invalid as astrology?
>>>> <http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534987803>
>>>> Capricorns are more than the stereotype allows for. They are charming
>>>> and smart, with a very dry sense of humor, and even lusty; the women are
>>>> especially social.
>>>
>>> General astrological archetype - not applied to an individual or even which
>>> planet/point within Capricorn. This is astrology.
>>
>> Is an archetype in any way related to the average personality of a large number of
>> individuals of this sign?
>
> I would imagine that the archetype is meant to be representative of the
> average personality of a large number of individuals who have Capricorn as
> a predominant influence. For example a stellium in Capricorn, or Capricorn
> rising, Sun or Moon. Or even a powerful Saturn or tenth house (Saturn is
> the ruling planet of Capricorn and the tenth house).
Paul Schlyter
>
>>>
>>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>>
>> The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
>> and that testing would prove his assertion.
>>
>>>
>>> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
>>
>> It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
>
>
> Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
> that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
> are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
>
> Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
> that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
> the latter are inconsequential.
claim that every astrologer, without exception, is stupid....
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote in message
news:7u2i5t$b79$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <380467CB...@acelink.net>,
> Thomas Seers <bel...@acelink.net> wrote:
>
> > PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> >> In article <7tvsrl$sik$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
Wow! Now, isn't that a typical reaction Thomas??
Jo
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Clitty Switch Hitter <i.like...@tryed.guys.hatedit> wrote in message
news:7u2a6l$8i5$1...@nntpd.databasix.com...
WOE!
Jo
PZ Myers
>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>>In article <7u35n1$prv$1...@merope.saaf.se>, pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul
>>Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>>Do you really consider it OPTIMISM to believe everyone is a MORON ????
>
>His idea of fun.
>
>>When the alternative is to believe that they are dishonest scoundrels,
>>yes. I'd rather think that they were ignorant dullards who are a victim
>>of a lot of wishful thinking than that they are charlatans.
>>
>>>Nevertheless, it seems here you've backed away somewhat from your earlier
>>>claim that every astrologer, without exception, is stupid....
>>
>>Oh, not really. I have an *extremely* low opinion now of anyone and everyone
>>who expresses a belief in astrology. Can you think of a counterexample? Is
>>there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose opinion you
>>would respect? I can't. I most particularly haven't encountered such an
>>astrological paragon on usenet.
>
>PZ keeps declaring war...
I can't help but notice that you've posted to this thread a few times, and
haven't been able to either address the challenge OR refute my claim with
a counterexample.
--
PZ Myers
jfred
> I can't help but notice that you've posted to this thread a few times, and
> haven't been able to either address the challenge OR refute my claim with
> a counterexample.
I can't help but notice that PZ has posted to this thread a few times,
and hasn't been able to either address the unfounded accusations he has
made OR refute the claim that he is a troll.
Robert Grumbine
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Oh, not really. I have an *extremely* low opinion now of anyone and everyone
>who expresses a belief in astrology. Can you think of a counterexample? Is
>there anyone who claims to actively believe in astrology whose opinion you
>would respect? I can't. I most particularly haven't encountered such an
>astrological paragon on usenet.
Note: There seems to be a lot of slopping back and forth between
'astrologers' and 'people who believe in astrology'.
As to the latter, yes, I've met people who believed in astrology and
were quite respectable w.r.t. my standards. The nonscientist
was quite open about astrology not being a science, not being
scientific, not making testable claims, etc. The scientist
considered western astrology tripe, but he's Hindu, and they
evidently have a different system. He also tended to think of
that as being meaningless as well, but (my version) an astrologer
made _a_ successful prediction (that was a 50-50 call, as far as I'm
concerned) so this scientist has decided that there's something
to Hindu astrology. Still not calling it scientific, and there's
a degree of provisionalism to the statement, but he's favorable.
I did encounter the former on usenet, though not in alt.astrology
(iirc, she didn't like the group at all). The latter is strictly
a non-usenet person.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Pedantus
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <7u00cn$7f3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Pedantus <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <myers-12109...@ppp79.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> > my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
> >
> >> So...are you saying that the 5 posts I excerpted are NOT real
> >> astrology? Or are you just saying that you are unwilling to stick
> >> your neck out and say something that isn't a lot of weebly
> >> gobbledygook?
> >>
> >> By the way, your conference for "real astrologers" looks just like
> >> alt.astrology, less that gang with the inverted alimentary canals
> >> and facial sphincters. Same ol' yammering over celebrity birth
data,
> >> same ol' morbid postdiction about disasters, like the recent London
> >> train crash. Perhaps you could be more specific and say *which* of
the
> >> many soft-brained posts on that page is representative of serious,
> >> sincere astrological chat?
> >>
> >> --
> >> PZ Myers
> >
> > You can't find what you are not looking for; astrology is first an
> > art of appreciation, not a science of discrimination.
>
> This another very common evasion by astrologers: "Astrology is an
> art", and quite often they add e.g. "just like music - do you object
> to music?".
>
> If this really was the case, all would be fine and well, since art
> forms do not make any verifyable claims. Music certainly doesn't do
> that: you can like or dislike some particular piece of music, but
> you cannot disagree with it, because music make no such claims.
>
> Astrology, however, make verifyable claims. All astrologers I've
> encountered so far, agree on at least one thing: it's important
> to use accurate natal data, otherwise the chart will be "invalid".
>
> What is an "invalid chart" in an astrological context? Is it any
> less enjoyable as an art form? Certainly not, since even if the
> natal data was inaccurate for some person, another person could have
> been born with these natal data, and claiming the "invalid chart" for
> the first person was unenjoyable as art would imply that the "valid
> chart" for that other person would be just as unenjoyable. And then
> we have a "valid chart" which isn't enjoyable even though it's valid.
> Thus "validity" has nothing whatever to do with enjoyability as an
> art form.
>
> However, the most important question is: are we able to distinguish a
> "valid chart" from an "invalid chart" ? This has been tested many
> times in blind tests, and always with the same result: neither
> astrologers, nor subjects are able to distinguish "valid" charts from
> "invalid" ones with any greater success rate than if they'd guessed
> randomly.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> The bottom line is: if you want to enjoy astrology as an art, fine!
> Even astronomers do that (e.g. when listening to Gustav Holst's "The
> Planets", which is so popular among astronomers that they even named
> an asteroid after Holst). But then you'd also have to drop the
> requirement of accurate natal data: even if grossly inaccurate natal
> data is used, the chart and its interpretation will still be just as
> enjoyable as an art form. If you claim any "validity", you've left
> the realm of art and entered the realm of science -- and then you'd
> better be able to back up your claim with evidence.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
>
Paul,
You have dismissed the actual nature of the astrological
*assumption* by calling it a unscientific presumption...this so you can
attack at will...*will* being the keyword here. There is no sense
throwing a temper tantrum becuase the world moves foward on certain
neccessary assumptions that can never be proven. Just as the corporate
world *must* subscribe to the "going concern assumption", the
astrologer must subscribe to the assumption that birth data is the
basis for an individual's particuar natal chart. Birth as a beginning
our individual life is simply a necessary assumption of natal
astrology. Sooner or later you will have to admit we live in faith
that our particular desired proof is *out there*...whoever we are,
whatever our perspective. But then there's that bogeyman--an awfully
big monster in the shadows, Paul, and It won't let Genralissimo Pablo
*dis-prove* astrology. That's all that really bothers you, dear boy--
you cannot remake the world in your own image because too much of your
*image* is just a shadow.
In a final analysis of Science's products, the end product with the
most meaningful vitality is always an intangible--with luck, an
improved *on going assumption* and the faith to pursue Life with gusto.
Rog
--
Roger L. Satterlee
July 26, 1950 11:53PM EDT
Elmira, New York 076W49 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406/rog_chrt.gif
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote in message
news:1dznoop.1tmaagr1huqzgmN%jf...@think.different...
> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't help but notice that you've posted to this thread a few times,
and
> > haven't been able to either address the challenge OR refute my claim
with
> > a counterexample.
>
> I can't help but notice that PZ has posted to this thread a few times,
> and hasn't been able to either address the unfounded accusations he has
> made OR refute the claim that he is a troll.
>
JFred gets the Poster of the month Award this month! God damn, yer good!
Jo
dreammin7
predictions. They are learned and respectable people. Most are supportive
and respectful of those who choose not to inquire information astrology has
to show.
There are also many liars, charltons, ect. Pick a winner.
Do I know any astrologers whose oppinion I would respect?? I do.
I definately do!
Next?
Jo
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Robert Grumbine <bo...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:7u4k1a$32v$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
Paul Schlyter
jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>
>> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
>
> There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
>
> Or did you misspell "idiot?"
Dina O'Grogan
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <7u2tq5$cgc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dina O'Grogan <kle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> But then you'd also have to drop the
> >> requirement of accurate natal data
> >
> > erect the chart on is inaccurate, the fact that you were given **that
> > particular set** of inaccurate data is *itself* significant, so your
> > intepretation will be meaningful *too*...
>
> Sounds plausible: it's unimportant for the perceived "meaning" of the
> chart reading if the natal data is accurate; but it is important that
> they are BELIEVED to be accurate.
True --- though to incorporate chummy (author of this book whose title I
can't recall) we'd have to say, 'believed to be "acausally connected"' ---
*he* was explicitly tossing aside the idea of 'accuracy' of the *data*
AIR... (I'm not sure if he is --- or will be --- widely followed in this).
In this way (and such was his intent) he of course came very close to the
actual nature of divination --- essentially, farting around with a bunch of
symbols and musing on them ---
> This essentially makes astrology a
> religion, and it also explains why astrology fails blind tests.
>
I'm not sure whether the idea of testability played any part in this guy's
scheme of things, or whether he'd tossed *it* aside too; he certainly had an
idea of 'hits' --- or better, interpretations that were just uncannily good
(in his eyes)... the problem was, it was ridiculously easy, if you knew a
little astrological symbolism, to construct entire alternate interpretations
to his which were equally as faithful to the symbols, but not nearly as
'good'...
This points to the problem with the 'artform' idea, or the
religious/contemplative/symbolic interpretation (though this view is taken by
many people I quite respect): as soon as you claim to be able to say
*interesting* things (or, *especially* relevant things --- i.e. 'hits' of
*some* sort) you're coming very close to claiming to be able to do something
which somebody could devise blind tests for ---
When tests are failed though, one then scurries back to the notion that it's
all really just an aesthetic contemplation of the interplay of symbols...
Maybe this is one of the great divides --- one party: it's not interesting
unless at *some* point you make testable claims, (and the tests are
passed)... the other party: oh, I find it all quite interesting nonetheless,
thank you very much...
This would all be very well and good if 'other party' *stuck to* aesthetic
contemplation --- it seems though that many can't resist the temptation to
smuggle in some notions of external validity while nobody's looking; which in
turn brings in the idea of tests, which starts the merry-go-round all over
again...
[---]
>
> Nothing -- and if so, he's certainly not the first New Ager who have
> misused quantum physics....
>
No, nor the last...
~D~
Paul Schlyter
> Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>In article <myers-13109...@ppp124.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <3804FE81...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>, Stella
>>> <maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>>>>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>>>>
>>>> The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
>>>> and that testing would prove his assertion.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
>>>>
>>>> It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
>>>
>>> It's true. We disagree a wee bit on this.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
>>> that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
>>> are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
>>>
>>> Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
>>> that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
>>> the latter are inconsequential.
>>
>
> yes.
even more pessimistic outlooks.
> I'd rather think that they were ignorant dullards who are a victim
> of a lot of wishful thinking than that they are charlatans.
believe they actually are?
>> Nevertheless, it seems here you've backed away somewhat from your earlier
>> claim that every astrologer, without exception, is stupid....
>
> who expresses a belief in astrology.
> Can you think of a counterexample? Is there anyone who claims to actively
> believe in astrology whose opinion you would respect? I can't.
hopeless morons? Is it to give yourself a sense of superiority, or what?
BTW if you were to apply the same logic not only to astrology but to
all human activities (and why shouldn't you?), your conclusion would
inevitably be that each and every human being is a hopeless moron.
Why? Because we all sometimes make irrational decisions, or hold
beliefs based on irrational reasons. Not even Isaac Newton, whose
contributions to mathematics and physics was just brilliant for his
time, and who also remained a virgin all those 84 years he lived, and
in addition was proud of that, was completely immune to this: he
believed in astrology, he devoted more time to biblical chronology
than to all the natural sciences combined, he mixed hos own "patent
medicine", containing among other things turpentine and beeswax, to
be used against any disease, and to be applied both internally and
externally, and he nearly poisoned himself while performing
alchemical experiments (samples of his hair, analysed some 150 years
after his death, showed 100 times more mercury than normally expected
from human tissues).
Is Isaac Newton included in your crowd of "hopeless morons" ??? If
you are consistent, he should be, despite his brilliant contributions
to math and physics, because he believed in astrology...
> I most particularly haven't encountered such an astrological paragon on usenet.
Ford, Whitey
> In article <1dzmxp9.yt24xj1wh9gw0N%jf...@think.different>,
> jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>
> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
> >
> >> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
> >
> > There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
> >
> > Or did you misspell "idiot?"
>
> No he didn't misspell it - that term is reserved for *you*... <g>
>
Heh.
What in the chart of a.a. shows how dickheads such as schister are
attracted here?
That would be a good test.
roachie-
gettin that myers look goin on. Head down, ass up and red swollen knees.
I have 45 more sq foot of tile to lay. Then I will be done.
Pedantus
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <38047617...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>,<snip>
> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
Dream on, oh prophet of our salvation...:)
As an astrologer (always an awkward label) I see you merely as an
expression of a natal chart...a specimen of decidely willful ignorance
wriggling beneath an ineffective but astronomically large fig leaf.
Rog
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
>
--
Roger L. Satterlee
July 26, 1950 11:53PM EDT
Elmira, New York 076W49 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406/rog_chrt.gif
jfred
> In article <1dzmxp9.yt24xj1wh9gw0N%jf...@think.different>,
> jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>
> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
> >
> >> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
> >
> > There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
> >
> > Or did you misspell "idiot?"
>
> No he didn't misspell it - that term is reserved for *you*... <g>
Referring to yourself in the third person? I sometimes suspected that
you were a kook, Paul... are you providing the evidence? ;-)
--
Rhianna
What d'ya say, folks? This sounds like the perfect debate for
alt.astrology.scam! What a way to kick off a new season!
Are all astrologers as stupid as PZ claims they are?
Are they *all* really scam artists?
This is why it is important to have great forums such as
alt.astrology.scam---make your voice (keyboard) count!!
>In article <3804FE81...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com>, Stella
><maia...@NOSPAM.dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>> If you want to appear stupid yourself (because you don't understand the
>>> difference between an opinion and a fact), go ahead....
>>
>>The facts of the matter is PZ *does* think *all* astrologers are stupid,
>>and that testing would prove his assertion.
>>
>>>
>>> Of course all astrologers ARE not stupid!
>>
>>It is nice to see that you do not agree with PZ.
>
>It's true. We disagree a wee bit on this.
>
>Unfortunately, if you'd read his posts a little more carefully you'd see
>that the basis for our difference is that he thinks the clever astrologers
>are all a bunch of amoral con artists, instead.
>
>Me, I just have a little more faith and optimism in human nature. I trust
>that the morons outnumber the unscrupulous frauds to a sufficient degree that
>the latter are inconsequential.
>
>[snip]
>
>--
>PZ Myers
~Cheers~
Rhianna
http://www.pipeline.com/~rhianna/index.htm
Zodiac, groovy fortunetelling, mystical fun stuff
Kevin Burnett
<i.like...@tryed.guys.hatedit> blathered:
>Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:47:45 -0500, Chigaco 18 pt <dontlike....@fuck.yo
>u.then> blathered:
>> >Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He likes to look like a complete fuck-knuckle.
>> >
>> >Kind of like you... because obviously you don't know exactly what kind
>> >of person you are fucking with.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, I know exactly what kind of person I'md dealing with.
>
>I seriously doubt that, buddy. I really really doubt it.
You can doubt all you want; your posting history on Usenet shows just what
kind of stupid nonentity you are.
>
> A complete
>> fuck-knuckle, someone who has no idea of how to argue anything,
>
>Wrong. I Just don't see the need to get in to logical debate with a
>piece of shit like you. Especially a pussy who can't handle a
>"fag-lame"; what the fuck is that? What pussies like you call a homo-
>qwote? Too afraid of being a homo so you take offense to some one who is
>either parodying or insulting you? What a thin skinned puss.
Are you proud of being stupid enough to not grasp that using fag-lames
is the second most tired, unimaginative, stupid tactic, right after
spelling lames?
>
>someone
>> who reaches for fag-lames immediately, who can't resist childish
>> name-calling. You sound like a clone of that other Usenet busted urinal,
>> anonym. You drone on, and on, and on, ad nauseum, who drones on, and on,
>> and on, back at you, PZ Myers. You, anonym, Myers, and your whole crew
>> deserve each other.
>
>Then why the fuck are you insistently droning on and on to me in this
>thread, assfuck?
Why? I like torturing twits like you. It seems to be working, too;
you keep replying to me.
>
>>
>> >I know that there are more people here that gives a shit more about how
>> >I appear to be compared to what you say. And they would correct me in an
>> >instant if I appeared to be a "fuck-knuckle." I had two e-mails since
>> >noon. Both of them were about your stupid ass, lame flame stealer.
>>
>> Aha, the "people support me in email" defense. Sorry, twit, that
>> doesn't wash.
>
>Um.. lets see. Whatever. I know nym supports me coz he's my
>homeslice...and he kicked your ass too. Others would but they know that
>you're just a boring faggot shithead and are not worth the time.
anonym supports you because you slavishly ape his non-style of laming,
and follow him around with your "me too" lames.
He kicked my ass so badly he had to killfile me. That's some ass-kicking,
alright.
>
> Do you realize that Wollmann, and other kooks,
>> use that same lame tactic? It should be called the "Nixon" defense.
>
><shlorp> and <handwring> ought to be yours and myers' defenses
>
>ah ah, I didn't say you could talk. Shut your mouth.
You first.
>
>> >And like I said before I am in about 1/10 of the killfiles compared to
>> >myers.
>>
>> So what?
>
>Did kevvie feel bad because I am that popular? <tosses hair>
I don't think I'd like your kind of popularity.
>
>> >
>> >So take your bitch switch ass and go somewhere where your whining is
>> >important.
>> >
>> >Most everyone else around alt.astrology is sick of you and pz mutually
>> >oral sexing each other. Especially sick of pz'z stupid fucking changing
>> >words and dead horse beating.
>>
>> I'm not reading your horseshit in alt.astrology, pube. If you haven't
>> noticed, your Usenet solid waste is crossposted to other groups.
>
>Not by me it isn't. I follow where others send them.. and in fact, why
>didn't YOU shut the shit up? I see you xposting back to alt.astrology
>with a whole host of other groups I never go to,
Deal with it, whiner.
>
>SO shut the fuck up, switch hitter (and I don't mean clitoris switch)
How clever. You'd better be careful, you might burn out both of your
neurons.
>
>> And another thing. Do you use your fag-lames due to some latent
>> homosexuality, or are you a bigot?
>
>Used to be latent.. then I unleashed it and decided that faggotry was
>not for me. I am now just like pz'z dick down your throat- straight.
>
>Now I just do it in fun and jest, mainly because it pisses you off.
Sure you do, you redneck shit-kicker.
--
k...@catnip.org http://www.catnip.org/
"This (besides the fact that as many awards as possible were attempted to
"increase the labling" effect) proves beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that I
am the most powerful intellectual giant to ever grace usenet."
- Edmond Heinz Wollmann, in message <37B292...@bigfoot.com>
Jules
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:03:54 GMT, d...@gans.car (Richard Cooper) said:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:30:21 GMT, "dreammin7" <drea...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>><SNIPPETY>
>>
>>What's going on?
>
>Everybody is watching you make an ass out of yourself, sock.
Yo, Taylor. Go easy on the PKB's fella, save some for me you wretched
trolled freakin' no mark.
Paul Schlyter
jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>
>> In article <1dzmxp9.yt24xj1wh9gw0N%jf...@think.different>,
>> jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
>> >
>> >> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
>> >
>> > There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
>> >
>> > Or did you misspell "idiot?"
>>
>> No he didn't misspell it - that term is reserved for *you*... <g>
>
>Referring to yourself in the third person? I sometimes suspected that
>you were a kook, Paul... are you providing the evidence? ;-)
I'm merely providing the evidence that my fingers are sometimes too
quick on the keyboard. You probably committ trivial errors too
from time to time, don't you?
Paul Schlyter
> You first want solid proof astrology works before you'll learn
> anything about it.
And if such proof exists, you ought to be able, and willing, to
provide it.
> I'm not aware of any astrological/scientific breakthroughs in the
> last few weeks, so that's out.
Are you aware of any such breakthoughs during the last few MILLENNIA ???
> And so is, I suppose, any interest in symbolism on your part.
FYI: symbolism is NOT solid proof.
If all you want is symbolism, fine -- but then there's no need
to use accurate natal data. Even if you use grossly erroneous
natal data, the symbolism, archetypes, etc, will still be there.
So why be possessed with the accuracy of natal data, if all you
want is symbolism?
>>OR refute my claim with a counterexample.
>
> astrologers. You enjoy being rude to them personally. What would make
> a person so bitter? Professional jealousy? Job frustration? Personal
> problems?
Why not instead silence PZ with the counterexample he requests ? <g>
I know why you don't do that: there is no such counterexample. Right?
Paul Schlyter
Pedantus <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
> You have dismissed the actual nature of the astrological
> *assumption* by calling it a unscientific presumption...this so you can
> attack at will...*will* being the keyword here.
The reason astrology is unscientific is that it makes verifyable claims
without being able to provide the evidence for these claims.
Science isn't unscientific, because it provides evidence for its
claims.
Music isn't unscientific either, because it makes no such claims.
> Just as the corporate world *must* subscribe to the "going concern
> assumption",
bankrupt. If all corporations' assumptions are wrong, the whole
economy will collapse. These are verifyable events.
> the astrologer must subscribe to the assumption that birth data
> is the basis for an individual's particuar natal chart.
Christ was the Son of God, who died for your sins, was resurrected,
and will return and doom you to eternal bliss or eternal hell.
This is religion -- and your description of astrology, if correct,
will make it a religion.
> Birth as a beginning our individual life is simply a necessary
> assumption of natal astrology.
the birth, and not the conception, the "beginning" ?
> Sooner or later you will have to admit we live in faith that our
> particular desired proof is *out there*...
the faith.
caramel salty balls
> You can doubt all you want; your posting history on Usenet shows just what
> kind of stupid nonentity you are.
Ah-ha! Yes, I know you went thru every post I ever have made and chased
everyone to the tee (sounds so Myersian, doesn't it? ). I guess that the
astrology posts I have made (of course you wouldn't know that because
you don't read alt.astrology) means I am a "stupid nonentity?"
> Are you proud of being stupid enough to not grasp that using fag-lames
> is the second most tired, unimaginative, stupid tactic, right after
> spelling lames?
Are you proud of being such a pussy and not strong enough to let them
roll off your back like the pint of splooge that one of your butt
buddies left there last night?
> Why? I like torturing twits like you. It seems to be working, too;
> you keep replying to me.
Heh. It's the other way around, buddy. If you had sense you would have
quit. I just feel like dicking you around. It seems to be working. You
keep replying to me.
> anonym supports you because you slavishly ape his non-style of laming,
> and follow him around with your "me too" lames.
Since you researched each and every one of them, get me evidence. I do
not recall saying "me too" to anonym.
Mommy and daddy didn't give you enough attention, titybaby? Oh poor
kevvie. Now nymmie gets all the attention and you don't get none.
Tough shit. Grow up.
> He kicked my ass so badly he had to killfile me. That's some ass-kicking,
> alright.
Not like the killfiling that you sher and pz does. Killfile someone and
are too much an asshole to ignore them when they do change posting
names. Some real killfiling you do. But he did kick your ass.. I notice
you are not trying to breathe thru his navel anymore.
ndwring> ought to be yours and myers' defenses
> >
> >ah ah, I didn't say you could talk. Shut your mouth.
>
> You first.
Only after you suck my dick, kevvie.
> >Did kevvie feel bad because I am that popular? <tosses hair>
>
> I don't think I'd like your kind of popularity.
Hmmm. Well, I'm sure you wouldn't. Being a faggot and all, you don't
like girls and stuff.
It's people who are constantly being dickheaded assholes like you that
are popular. I'm almost ready for you to start spewing crazy shit like
other kooks.
> >Not by me it isn't. I follow where others send them.. and in fact, why
> >didn't YOU shut the shit up? I see you xposting back to alt.astrology
> >with a whole host of other groups I never go to,
>
> Deal with it, whiner.
Oh, I was spitting it back in your mouth, assmunch. You complain about
all the x-posts and when I show that you are the dickweed who set the
groups you claim I am whining.
> >SO shut the fuck up, switch hitter (and I don't mean clitoris switch)
>
> How clever. You'd better be careful, you might burn out both of your
> neurons.
Shit. How little you think of me. Such a negative attitude. I feel sorry
for a reamed asshole like you. A little positive spin in your life may
make you a less bitter and more productive person.
I hate to let you in on this sekret, but... I bet I am smarter than you
anyway. Can't you see you are making an ass of yourself while I don't
give a shit about the way I appear? :) If it didn't mean anything to
you, you'd not continue would you? I am bruising your fragile ego so you
have to try to degrade me further :) Go for it. I can handle whatever
you dish out, except VD.
> >Now I just do it in fun and jest, mainly because it pisses you off.
>
> Sure you do, you redneck shit-kicker.
I resent that. I'm not a redneck shitkicker. Wait. I kick your ass, so
that means I am a shitkicker. But not a redneck, got you wrong on that
one. Just another bigoted and stereotyped response to someone who
happens to be from Texas.
roachie-
Suck on my Caramel Salty Balls, kevvieeee.
jfred
> In article <1dznxoy.1l4ncln19cs2ioN%jf...@think.different>,
> jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
> >Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1dzmxp9.yt24xj1wh9gw0N%jf...@think.different>,
> >> jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> To astrologers I probably appear as an iconoclast....
> >> >
> >> > There's such a fine line between an iconoclast and a troll...
> >> >
> >> > Or did you misspell "idiot?"
> >>
> >> No he didn't misspell it - that term is reserved for *you*... <g>
> >
> >Referring to yourself in the third person? I sometimes suspected that
> >you were a kook, Paul... are you providing the evidence? ;-)
>
> I'm merely providing the evidence that my fingers are sometimes too
> quick on the keyboard. You probably committ trivial errors too
> from time to time, don't you?
MOI !?!?!?
Make mistakes!?!?!
Thomas Seers
Well,
Where is the *fish*, so smart he can't find a way to swim over here.
Thomas
--
*****************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA
E-mail: Se...@astro-clinic.com
Lebanon, TN 37087
Tel (615) 453-5133 Fax (615) 453-0031
http://www.acelink.net/users/belzar/
*****************************************
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Jules <Ju...@hell-flame-wars.org> wrote in message
news:380a1460...@hell-flame-wars.org...
> Doofus taylor....@lart.REMOVECAPS.com (Taylor NetScum) said:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:03:54 GMT, d...@gans.car (Richard Cooper) said:
> >
> >>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:30:21 GMT, "dreammin7" <drea...@home.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >><SNIPPETY>
> >>
> >>What's going on?
> >
> >Everybody is watching you make an ass out of yourself, sock.
I'm not a sock! I'm me! Joanna! Who are you?
Oh yee of little faith.
Jo
Jeeeze.
> Yo, Taylor. Go easy on the PKB's fella, save some for me you wretched
> trolled freakin' no mark.
Kevin Burnett
<deez...@kevvies.mouth> blathered:
>Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote:
>
>> You can doubt all you want; your posting history on Usenet shows just what
>> kind of stupid nonentity you are.
>
>Ah-ha! Yes, I know you went thru every post I ever have made and chased
>everyone to the tee (sounds so Myersian, doesn't it? ). I guess that the
>astrology posts I have made (of course you wouldn't know that because
>you don't read alt.astrology) means I am a "stupid nonentity?"
How do you know that? Got some proof? Or is that just conjecture of the
type you constantly accuse PZ Myers of engaging in?
>
>> Are you proud of being stupid enough to not grasp that using fag-lames
>> is the second most tired, unimaginative, stupid tactic, right after
>> spelling lames?
>
>Are you proud of being such a pussy and not strong enough to let them
>roll off your back like the pint of splooge that one of your butt
>buddies left there last night?
When are you going to understand this? I'm not personally insulted by
your stupid remarks. I'm pointing out that they're *stupid*.
>
>> Why? I like torturing twits like you. It seems to be working, too;
>> you keep replying to me.
>
>Heh. It's the other way around, buddy. If you had sense you would have
>quit. I just feel like dicking you around. It seems to be working. You
>keep replying to me.
>
>> anonym supports you because you slavishly ape his non-style of laming,
>> and follow him around with your "me too" lames.
>
>Since you researched each and every one of them, get me evidence. I do
>not recall saying "me too" to anonym.
Another nice example of your complete stupidity, and inability to
comprehend simple English. I certainly wasn't claiming you literally
said "me too" to anonym. If you'd put your 8008 processor-sized brain
to work on it, you might understand.
>
>Mommy and daddy didn't give you enough attention, titybaby? Oh poor
>kevvie. Now nymmie gets all the attention and you don't get none.
When the attention someone gets comes from Wollmann, PZ Myers, and the
rest of the idiots and cretins in alt.astrology, it's not something to
brag about.
>
>Tough shit. Grow up.
>
>> He kicked my ass so badly he had to killfile me. That's some ass-kicking,
>> alright.
>
>Not like the killfiling that you sher and pz does. Killfile someone and
>are too much an asshole to ignore them when they do change posting
>names. Some real killfiling you do. But he did kick your ass.. I notice
>you are not trying to breathe thru his navel anymore.
What's the point, if I'm in his killfile and he won't see the posts?
>
>ndwring> ought to be yours and myers' defenses
>> >
>> >ah ah, I didn't say you could talk. Shut your mouth.
>>
>> You first.
>
>Only after you suck my dick, kevvie.
No thanks.
>
>> >Did kevvie feel bad because I am that popular? <tosses hair>
>>
>> I don't think I'd like your kind of popularity.
>
>Hmmm. Well, I'm sure you wouldn't. Being a faggot and all, you don't
>like girls and stuff.
Where'd you get that strange idea?
>
>It's people who are constantly being dickheaded assholes like you that
>are popular. I'm almost ready for you to start spewing crazy shit like
>other kooks.
Nice auto-flame.
>
>> >Not by me it isn't. I follow where others send them.. and in fact, why
>> >didn't YOU shut the shit up? I see you xposting back to alt.astrology
>> >with a whole host of other groups I never go to,
>>
>> Deal with it, whiner.
>
>Oh, I was spitting it back in your mouth, assmunch. You complain about
>all the x-posts and when I show that you are the dickweed who set the
>groups you claim I am whining.
Whiner.
>
>> >SO shut the fuck up, switch hitter (and I don't mean clitoris switch)
>>
>> How clever. You'd better be careful, you might burn out both of your
>> neurons.
>
>Shit. How little you think of me. Such a negative attitude. I feel sorry
>for a reamed asshole like you. A little positive spin in your life may
>make you a less bitter and more productive person.
You're right, I think very little of you.
>
>I hate to let you in on this sekret, but... I bet I am smarter than you
>anyway.
Based on what evidence? Usenet?
>Can't you see you are making an ass of yourself while I don't
>give a shit about the way I appear? :) If it didn't mean anything to
>you, you'd not continue would you? I am bruising your fragile ego so you
>have to try to degrade me further :) Go for it. I can handle whatever
>you dish out, except VD.
What makes you think I'm not doing that myself?
>
>> >Now I just do it in fun and jest, mainly because it pisses you off.
>>
>> Sure you do, you redneck shit-kicker.
>
>I resent that. I'm not a redneck shitkicker. Wait. I kick your ass, so
>that means I am a shitkicker. But not a redneck, got you wrong on that
>one. Just another bigoted and stereotyped response to someone who
>happens to be from Texas.
Gotcha, you fuckface redneck shit-kicker hick sheep-fucker.
You use constant fag-lames and tell me to lighten up, but then you get
all offended because I called you a redneck?
Redneck fuckhead.
dreammin7
--
Drea...@Home.com
Pisces happens
Paul Schlyter <pau...@merope.saaf.se> wrote in message
news:7u53rc$frk$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <7u4ode$ktu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Pedantus <peda...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > You have dismissed the actual nature of the astrological
> > *assumption* by calling it a unscientific presumption...this so you can
> > attack at will...*will* being the keyword here.
>
> That's the wrong keyword.
>
> The reason astrology is unscientific is that it makes verifyable claims
> without being able to provide the evidence for these claims.
>
> Science isn't unscientific, because it provides evidence for its
> claims.
>
> Music isn't unscientific either, because it makes no such claims.
>
> > Just as the corporate world *must* subscribe to the "going concern
> > assumption",
>
>
> If the corporation's assumption is wrong, the corporation will go
> bankrupt. If all corporations' assumptions are wrong, the whole
> economy will collapse. These are verifyable events.
>
> > the astrologer must subscribe to the assumption that birth data
> > is the basis for an individual's particuar natal chart.
>
> Likewise the Christian must subscribe to the belief that Jesus
> Christ was the Son of God, who died for your sins, was resurrected,
> and will return and doom you to eternal bliss or eternal hell.
I see you haven't studied Christianity either.
Christ isn't the one who dooms you.
Jo
Shrugs shoulders ^ _^
> This is religion -- and your description of astrology, if correct,
> will make it a religion.
>
> > Birth as a beginning our individual life is simply a necessary
> > assumption of natal astrology.
>
> Why is it necessary? What if this assumption is wrong? Why is
> the birth, and not the conception, the "beginning" ?
>
> > Sooner or later you will have to admit we live in faith that our
> > particular desired proof is *out there*...
>
> Not necessary -- one can also abandon faith, if no evidence supports
> the faith.
>