Science Vs. Astrology
Edmond Wollmann
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > science if it don't work".
> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> Beacon
Astrology is an art/science
I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Beacon wrote:
>
> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
> > > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > science if it don't work".
>
> > cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
> > Beacon
>
> Astrology is an art/science
That you use to scam rubes out of their money.
That Wollmann Asshole
news:3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com:
> Beacon wrote:
>
>> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
>> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
>> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't science if
>> > it don't work".
>
>> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
>> Beacon
>
> Astrology is an art/science
Edmo, you claimed it wasn't a science!
> I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
> http://www.astrocons.com/plagiarism.htm
Has Ms. Brady contacted you about your thievery yet, kook?
Ophisios
> Beacon wrote:
>
> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
> > > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > science if it don't work".
>
> > cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
> > Beacon
>
> Astrology is an art/science
> I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Again, the criterion of success is a somewhat different way of looking at
science from what Popper envisions. The question of what it means to
succeed, what counts as success, etc., raises a lot of issues that go
beyond accounts of science that concentrate only on verification and
falsification. In the case of astrology, what it means to succeed is
qualitatively different from success in modern astronomy. The two
discourses are simply incommensurable. To say that astronomy is "better"
than astronomy is a importantly like saying that Milton's version of Samson
and the Philistines is "better" than the one in Judges. Milton's seems
better to us because it presents rounded characters with vivid inner lives,
whereas the Biblical account is comparatively flat. However, our
preference for rounded individuality is in large part a function of
Milton's stylistic innovations. We judge "Samson Agonistes" to be superior
to Judges only from the point of view of "Samson Agonistes," not from that
of some detached spectator with a universal measure.
Ophisios
If the American taxpayers knew what sort of "research" a good deal of their
money was funding, they'd be as upset as your rube taken by an astrologer.
And I seem to recall someone posting here to the effect that the customer is
always right....
Spamster
Ophisios wrote:
> Spamster wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > > Beacon wrote:
> > >
> > > > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > > > message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> > >
> > > > > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > > > science if it don't work".
> > >
> > > > cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> > >
> > > > Beacon
> > >
> > > Astrology is an art/science
> >
> > That you use to scam rubes out of their money.
>
> If the American taxpayers knew what sort of "research" a good deal of their
> money was funding, they'd be as upset as your rube taken by an astrologer.
Probably.
> And I seem to recall someone posting here to the effect that the customer is
> always right....
That doesn't make scamming then an ethical thing to do.
Cardinal Chunder
>
> Astrology is an art/science
If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
an art/science too.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>Beacon wrote:
>> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
>> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
>> > science if it don't work".
>> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>> Beacon
>Astrology is an art/science
Astrology is no science.
>I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
>http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Heh. Right.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>If the American taxpayers knew what sort of "research" a good deal of their
>money was funding, they'd be as upset as your rube taken by an astrologer.
>And I seem to recall someone posting here to the effect that the customer is
>always right....
What, pray tell, is it that you find so bad in the research
that the feds fund?
And no sliding down the path of the excluded middle, either, dude.
Ophisios
> In article <3C3C844B...@aol.com>, Ophisios <phi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >If the American taxpayers knew what sort of "research" a good deal of their
> >money was funding, they'd be as upset as your rube taken by an astrologer.
> >And I seem to recall someone posting here to the effect that the customer is
> >always right....
>
> What, pray tell, is it that you find so bad in the research
> that the feds fund?
In general I don't find anything bad about it, in general, myself, personally.
I'd like to see funding go higher. But the "American taxpayer" -- by which I
mean those generic heartland voters who are capable of being stirred up by
politicians -- would, and sometimes do.
>
>
> And no sliding down the path of the excluded middle, either, dude.
You make it sound like so much fun!
Malthus
> Beacon wrote:
>
>> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote
> in
>> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
>> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
>> > science if it don't work".
>
>> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
>> Beacon
>
> Astrology is an art/science
> I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
According to this link
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=113449
New Year astrological predictions (in the UK at least) are full of the
effects of a newly discovered minor planet, KX76. It's really just an
over-large asteroid, discovered last May.
Quote:
If you are a Taurus, then
you should be feeling its
intense "influence". People
who are Aries will get a
jolt of "momentum" thanks
to it. And if you are a
Scorpio, then you can
thank your lucky stars, for
it is about to take you
through one of the most
"delightful eras" you are
ever likely to encounter.
In fact, just about every
star sign, according to the
New Year predictions of
astrologers, will feel the
effects of KX76...
Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
Hint: It's been there for aeons.
Dunderheads.
--
Nigel Malthus,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~kh
Astrology: the failure to understand that the planets stopped being gods
once mortals could predict their movements.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ophisios
>
> Astrology: the failure to understand that the planets stopped being gods
> once mortals could predict their movements.
>
Astronomy: the failure to understand that the universe is no less
mysterious than it was before mortals learned to formulate its laws. (Cf.
Whitman, "The Learned Astronomer.")
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
>of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
>planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
Yup.
>Hint: It's been there for aeons.
>Dunderheads.
You're too kind.
I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night, just
for giggles. It said something to the effect that I was feeling
particularly social, and should go out and socialize, not stay
home and not socialize.
This came as somewhat of a surprise to myself, my spouse, and
the two offspring sitting at the table when I read it. It WAS
good for a laugh, so I guess you COULD say it aided social behavior
in some light.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
>In general I don't find anything bad about it, in general, myself, personally.
>I'd like to see funding go higher. But the "American taxpayer" -- by which I
>mean those generic heartland voters who are capable of being stirred up by
>politicians -- would, and sometimes do.
Ok. I'll agree with that. I thought you were trying to pull a
Proxmire there for a minute.
Now, can we discuss the chilling effects on public knowledge
and the public's desire for knowledge that the arch-conservative
types have created with their "creation science" and such, that
exist, I think, only to muddy the waters to confuse the poor
ordinary mortal?
Beacon
Ophisios <phi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C3C83BC...@aol.com...
Davin C. Enigl <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c375d50...@news.earthlink.net...
> Popper never said his demarcation theory needed to be falsifiable
> because it is not intended to be a scientific theory. It is a method,
> a rule of demarcating between science and pseudoscience. That is not
> a flaw, there are many rules that are not self-consistant. For
> instance no metaphysical theory is falsifiable yet they are not
> meaningless. And, they may not be rationally or irrationally held
> depending on the rest of your epistemology. Popper's metaphysics is
> Realism and it follows that the regulatory method of culling-out wrong
> theories should be testing empirically against reality. This is
> demarcation between science and pseudoscience.
>
> Now, if you must defend that demarcation . . . that is the easy way.
>
> If on the other hand you want to make Popper's regulatory method a
> scientific theory and therefore want it to be self-criticising, then
> you list Popper's full non-authoritarian method as he revised it with
> his student Willian Warren Bartley III. This is pan-critical
> rationalism:
>
> Summary of non-authoritarian pan-critical rationalism:
> (1) There are no ultimate sources of knowledge.
> (2) All we can do is ask if an assertion is true in that it agrees
> with the facts.
> (3) Previously held beliefs that agreed with the facts continue to be
> held by tradition. (There is nothing wrong with this -- in
> principle).
> (4) Anti-traditionalism is not important for its own sake -- in
> principle. But all tradition is open to critical examination and may
> be over thrown if found to be wrong.
> (5) Knowledge cannot start from nothing (i.e., not from tabula rasa)
> and knowledge cannot start from observation. The advancement of
> knowledge comes from modification and correction of earlier knowledge
> (the basis for traditional beliefs).
> (6) Neither knowledge nor reason is beyond criticism (nor are they
> sources of ultimate authority).
> (7) Absolute precision is impossible. Definitions and meanings lead
> to the fallacy of infinite regress, therefore cannot be important.
> Clarity is achieved by understanding illustrative examples.
> (8) Every solution creates new problems. This makes our knowledge
> finite and our ignorance not only intractable but also infinite -- in
> principle.
> (9) The above numbered theses are open to criticism.
>
> >The understanding is that Popper's criterion
> >requires that a statement must be falsifiable in order to
> >be considered scientific. However, Popper's criterion is
> >itself an "axiom", i.e., it must be accepted on its own merits.
>
> No, not really. The demarcation method is a regulatory rule, not an
> axiom. In fact, a falsification can be criticized by the same
> demarcation rule. In other words, Popper's falsification method
> actually is falsiofiable because a falsification *is* criticizable
> (which is all Popper really said by requiring falsifiability).
>
> >It may be "self-evident" but its not falsifiable.
>
> It is not self-evident at all. But it is falsifiable because of the
> above reasons. Plus, I should say Popper does not use "naive
> falsification" which said thatonce proved wrong a theory can not be
> reconsidered later. That is not what Popper said. He said the
> falsification is criticizable too. Here we see Popper's
> sophistication. He is not an authoritarian dictator who rejects
> self-criticism.
>
> But, the criticism of the falsification method (if any) must be on a
> stronger basis than a misunderstanding of its status an rule that is
> not sopposed to be a scientific theory in the first place.
>
> The motivation for the falsification method is to cull-out wrong
> theories by the common sense approach "trail and error elimination."
>
>
> >No one is denying the usefulness of the criterion (actually,
> >he is, but only on the philosophical basis of this "flaw").
Michael Painter
"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:3C3C93C9...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com...
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Astrology is an art/science
>
A person may use a paint developed by science to do some "art".
No two people will paint the same things and the results will be purely
subjective.
Oddly enough a board painted blue by somebody famous will make more money
that a similar board painted the same way by me.
The "science" part of astrology yields results that are similar to the
paint.
The astrologer makes up the rest.
Edmond Wollmann
No, you are talking about religion now.
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
> Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >Beacon wrote:
> >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> >> > science if it don't work".
> >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> >> Beacon
> >Astrology is an art/science
> Astrology is no science.
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible. This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
the argument that definitely would lead us to different conclusions
(most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please state your
status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed. Logic, Hurley,
91.
Edmond Wollmann
> >> Beacon
> Christchurch, New Zealand.
> Astrology: the failure to understand that the planets stopped being gods
> once mortals could predict their movements.
Newspaper and SunSign astrology is compared to real astrology, like "Ask
Ann Landers" is to real clinical psychology.
Thank you for your interest in astrology and this group.
If you are willing to supply accurate and exact information I am sure
some astrologers may be willing to help if they can. Astrology is NOT
what is generally accepted and spun by newspapers and the media etc.
based only on sunsigns, anymore than "Ask Ann Landers" or some newpaper
advice column is depth psychology, counseling or professional therapy.
Would you base important life decisions on that?
To make sweeping generalizations with sun signs is simplistic and
irresponsible. The study of astrology is complex and must be learned
like any other discipline. It must be treated with the respect it
deserves as a powerful tool of understanding. Tools are always dependent
upon the astuteness of the craftsman and their application abilities.
There is one way that sun signs can be used in a positive way. That is
by having the horoscope done properly and accurately and then placing
the sun on the ascendant with its degree and sign as the ascendant. This
is the solar chart. The solar chart can then be read just like a natal
and is very revealing as far as implications and interpretations. In
this way the solar chart can be used in conjunction with the natal house
arrangement and adds powerful information as far as transits etc. as
well once an accurate horoscope has been obtained.
5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
combinations. The sun sign is simply ONE of those factors. True
astrology defines the specificity of identity through delineation of a
myriad of factors, and ALL of these factors reflect the identity.
Psychodynamic functioning is reflected through astrological signature
and leads us to an understanding of the psyche and the beliefs of the
identity. These beliefs are what is responsible for the created
experiential reality and is reflected in the mirror of mind-matter.
Therefore there are as many different vibrations as people and
astrological possibilities as well. Even twins can express different
levels of the same chart, so there is no fixed pattern of anything that
makes anyone set as a such and such.
In the same way that a doctor would not make such irresponsible
diagnoses based on a persons hair color-so in the same way astrology
demands full and cogent renderings based on complete information.
At least with a solar chart we still take the natal positions in
consideration for a more complete view of the person in question. The
astrologer must be diverse and open to viewing the subject in many ways.
If astrology is to be treated as a serious subject and valuable
paradigm, we must present it in a coherent and comprehensive way.
Edmond Wollmann
>
> In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
> Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> >Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
>
> >If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
> >of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
> >planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
>
> Yup.
>
> >Hint: It's been there for aeons.
>
> >Dunderheads.
>
> You're too kind.
>
> I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night,
Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/ancient.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/map.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/ancient_page_2.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/figures_page_3.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/figures_page_4.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/chronology.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/did_the_greeks_invent_astrology.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/art_evolution_in_greece_and_rome.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arabic.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/marsilio.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/christian.htm
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/mesoamerican_astrology.htm
A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
open. If it doesn't STAY open, the collision with reality may be
traumatic indeed.
Edmond Wollmann
> > > Beacon wrote:
> > > > Beacon
Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This document
wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university professors,
some Nobel Prize winners. The idea being to put an end, once and for
all, to public interest and belief in the nebulous pseudo-science. After
all, these are scientists; objective students of observation, right?
Wrong!
The only one I have read (although I would like to think there are
others) that made an intelligent response to the HUMANIST, was Carl
Sagan. In his letter to the editor, he stated:
"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
statement, not because I feel that astrology has any validity
whatsoever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the
statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the
origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well
for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To
discuss the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology
seems to me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can
think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No
mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was
proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and
those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
"We have no way of identifying truths except to posit that the
statements that are currently rationally accepted (by our lights) are
true." Hilary Putnam
Ophisios
Astronomers often talk about astrology the same way that chemists talk about
alchemy, i.e., by taking literally what was in fact a complex and interesting
symbolic/metaphorical system.
Edmond Wollmann
> > > >> Beacon
> > > >Astrology is an art/science
> > > Astrology is no science.
> Astronomers often talk about astrology the same way that chemists talk about
> alchemy, i.e., by taking literally what was in fact a complex and interesting
> symbolic/metaphorical system.
True, and not realizing that like Alchemy into chemistry and medicine,
astrology is still evolving and is still useful. We do not understand
the mechanisms for a whole array of phenomena in reality. To say that
because we cannot find a specific mechanism and lay it out on the table
that, say, allowed Van Gogh to paint beautiful paintings, is not proof
or relevant to the fact that they were and are.
Ophisios
This works (provisionally) if you present Popper's doctrine as a method that
scientists OUGHT to follow. I thought the claim was that Popperian methods are
the ones that (successful) scientists do indeed follow. That is what the works
I mentioned contest, I think persuasively.
el...@no.spam
>Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
Still not true.
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Astrology is an art/science
>
> > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > an art/science too.
>
> No, you are talking about religion now.
No, we were talking about a kook, you to be exact.
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>
> > In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> > >Beacon wrote:
>
> > >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
> > >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > >> > science if it don't work".
>
> > >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
> > >> Beacon
>
> > >Astrology is an art/science
>
> > Astrology is no science.
>
> Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
PKB!
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
>open.
Open doesn't mean you have to believe what every kook on the
block is preaching, Edie. It would be really stupid to buy
what a fraud like you is selling no matter how "open" one's
mind is.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>Thank you for your interest in astrology and this group.
>
>If you are willing to supply accurate and exact information I am sure
>some astrologers may be willing to help if they can.
And even without any you'll find Wollmann quite willing to
scam any money he can.
--
"You MUST take action against this abuser--NOW!!"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole, bully, Kook of the Year 1998,
the Ted Kennedy of astrologers, Village Idiot Award winner,
dumpster diver, smeg for brains, KOOK of the MILLENNIUM,
whiner, ignoramus, comma challenged, plagiarist
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.shore.net/~a/wollmann/faves.html
http://www.shore.net/~a/wollmann/spank.html
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> >
> > In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
> > Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> > >Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
> >
> > >If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
> > >of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
> > >planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > >Hint: It's been there for aeons.
> >
> > >Dunderheads.
> >
> > You're too kind.
> >
> > I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night,
>
> Why not read
http://www.smbtech.com/ed
Good idea!
Lou Minatti®
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
You started spamming Usenet with your incoherent screed.
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
For scamming rubes, maybe.
Michael Painter
"Edmond Wollmann" <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:3C3CE5...@astroconsulting.com...
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Astrology is an art/science
>
> > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > an art/science too.
>
> No, you are talking about religion now.
In my exchange with RM I saw no discernable difference between his views and
that of a religious fundamentalist.
So far your refusal to answer questions puts you in the same boat.
Flash Bazbo
> Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
> I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
Really, ed? Who wrote them?
Racqu...@hvc.rr.com
>earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
>combinations.
However, the factors are arbitrarily delineated. What criteria has
been developed by testing and experimentation in order to assign
relevant "factors" and to assess their degree of relevance? What
testable process led to assigning the characteristics associated with
the various sun signs? Is visibility to the unaided eye an essential
requirement? Why? The implication is that gravity is an issue, but
I'm not aware that anyone actually measured the gravitational effects
of the various solar objects? If visibility is NOT a requirement,
then there are several large moons which rival planetary size and, to
my knowledge, play no part in this process.
Astrology, for all its complexity and detail, is not objectively
testable, nor is there any real experimental basis for the detail and
design. It is not science any more than any subjective creation of
man's imagination.
Ophisios
Spamster wrote:
He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
Racqu...@hvc.rr.com
By which Sagan quite correctly states that scientists err when they
attempt to go beyond the limitations of scientific process. Science
cannot state that something is right, nor should they claim it to be
"wrong" unless they can unambiguously PROVE it wrong. Sagan quite
clearly indicates that Astrology fails the test for the requirements
of scientific endeavor, but ALSO correctly holds out the possibility
that there may be some scientific basis WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
DEMONSTRATED TO THIS POINT. This is hardly a ringing endorsement.
>"We have no way of identifying truths except to posit that the
>statements that are currently rationally accepted (by our lights) are
>true." Hilary Putnam
Science has no way of establishing "truth" in the FIRST place. It can
only establish degrees of confidence in beliefs based upon observation
and objective testing.
Ophisios
Shari Boone wrote:
> So, he didn't like the tone of it. He still maintained that astrology has no
> validity whatsoever, you fucking idiot!
Read it again. He didn't object only to the tone. He also objected to the
substance of dogmatic rejections of astrology. He cautioned people not to reject
out of hand invisible entities whose existence has not been proven. The larger
point -- about dogmatism -- is the defomation professionelle of the scientist:
the tendency to transform a tiny bit of results into a vast metaphysical order.
Ophisios
Shari Boone wrote:
> Wollmann's astrology is like having your throat strangled while someone
> ass-fucks you and cleans out your wallet.
Sounds exciting! Do you think he'd offer a reach-around?
Ophisios
Beacon wrote:
> Ophisios <phi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C3C83BC...@aol.com...
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > > Beacon wrote:
> > >
> > > > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > > > message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> > >
> > > > > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > > > science if it don't work".
> > >
> > > > cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> > >
> > > > Beacon
> > >
> > > Astrology is an art/science
> > > I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
> > > http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
> >
> > Again, the criterion of success is a somewhat different way of looking at
> > science from what Popper envisions. The question of what it means to
> > succeed, what counts as success, etc., raises a lot of issues that go
> > beyond accounts of science that concentrate only on verification and
> > falsification. In the case of astrology, what it means to succeed is
> > qualitatively different from success in modern astronomy. The two
> > discourses are simply incommensurable. To say that astronomy is "better"
> > than astronomy is a importantly like saying that Milton's version of
> Samson
> > and the Philistines is "better" than the one in Judges. Milton's seems
> > better to us because it presents rounded characters with vivid inner
> lives,
> > whereas the Biblical account is comparatively flat. However, our
> > preference for rounded individuality is in large part a function of
> > Milton's stylistic innovations. We judge "Samson Agonistes" to be
> superior
> > to Judges only from the point of view of "Samson Agonistes," not from that
> > of some detached spectator with a universal measure.
> >
>
I thought I answered this. The conversation was not about whether Popper had a
good idea about what successful scientists ought to be doing, but whether his
model describes what they in fact do. I cited a literature that shows various
successful sciences (mainly mecahnics and biology) to operate in ways that
aren't usefully described in Popperian terms. Whether they should follow
Popper's strictures is another question. My view is that they should not,
because they have been successful when they ignored them, and I'd like to see
them continue to be successful.
Ophisios
Racqu...@hvc.rr.com wrote:
> It is not science any more than any subjective creation of
> man's imagination.
But science is, precisely, a subjective creation of man's imagination,
and a magnificent one.
Jim Phillips
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>
> > In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> > >Beacon wrote:
>
> > >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
> > >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > >> > science if it don't work".
>
> > >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
> > >> Beacon
>
> > >Astrology is an art/science
>
> > Astrology is no science.
>
> Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with this situation. The basic
claims of astrology are known to anyone who's ever heard of it. The fact
that astrology is completely incapable of doing what it claims to be able to
do is easy to understand.
snip
--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net (remove 's' to e-mail)
"He preferred the harsh truth to his dearest illusion. That is the heart
of science." -- Carl Sagan, "Cosmos"
Jim Phillips
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> >
> > In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
> > Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> > >Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
> >
> > >If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
> > >of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
> > >planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
> >
> > Yup.
Never mind the fact that Uranus, Neptune & Pluto didn't find their
way into astrological horoscopes until after they'd been discovered by
astronomers. Imagine that...
> > >Hint: It's been there for aeons.
> >
> > >Dunderheads.
> >
> > You're too kind.
> >
> > I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night,
>
> Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
Because it would be a waste of time, unless you are in need of
sleep? Because professional astrologers are no better than I am at matching
people to charts? Because astrologers have never been able to explain why
two people born at the same place and time can have very different lives?
> I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
"Open, intelligent minds" = agree with Edmond.
Snip of nonsense
Here's a much better reference: http://www.smbtech.com/ed.
Ophisios
Jim Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> > > >Beacon wrote:
> >
> > > >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > > >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> >
> > > >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > >> > science if it don't work".
> >
> > > >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> >
> > > >> Beacon
> >
> > > >Astrology is an art/science
> >
> > > Astrology is no science.
> >
> > Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
>
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with this situation. The basic
> claims of astrology are known to anyone who's ever heard of it.
This is certainly false, depending, of course, on what is meant by "astrology."
The basic claims of the method of divination associated with the I Ching are
known by most who have heard of it in a rather crude, literalistic form. But if
you look into it a bit more carefully you will discover a beautiful and fruitful
way of thinking about how events in life hang together and drift apart. You
could say that the basic identities of the Greek gods are known to everyone
who's heard of them, and in a sense that's true. But most people probably think
most Greeks believed that these gods were literally real -- which is not at all
the case. They were understood as personifications of overwhelming forces that
could interfere with human intentions, yet could somehow be understood as
intentions or aims on some strange, more universal level. To this day, some
people find these gods are better-suited to elucidating our condition than any
other figures or "models" we might consider. (The Italian writer Roberto
Calasso, for instance.)
Jim Phillips
Don't forget to include alt.astrology.metapsych next time!
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Michael Painter wrote:
> "Edmond Wollmann" <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3CE5...@astroconsulting.com...
> > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> >
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > > > Astrology is an art/science
> >
> > > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > > an art/science too.
> >
> > No, you are talking about religion now.
>
> In my exchange with RM I saw no discernable difference between his views and
> that of a religious fundamentalist.
> So far your refusal to answer questions puts you in the same boat.
Not quite; Ed lacks the sincerity I've found in most astrologers
that post here. He might believe that astrology is valid, but I think it
more likely he's just using it to scam money from others.
Ophisios
Jim Phillips wrote:-
>
> "He preferred the harsh truth to his dearest illusion. That is the heart
> of science." -- Carl Sagan, "Cosmos"
Leaving aside the metaphysics, perhaps he just preferred the harsh to the dear,
and called the former Truth, as a kind of compliment. That is the heart of the
ascetic.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
Oh, goodie, when you get them peer reviewed and accepted
for publication in IEEE information theory, a
recognized Physics journal, or something like that, let me know.
Anyone can write ANYTHING, literally ANYTHING, and put it
up as a "paper" on the net, and that's just what people do.
www.crank.net is a wonderfully entertaining collection
of addresses to unusual positions put forth on the net.
NOW:
What matters is a "paper" that is peer reviewed by the
appropriate scientific journal (one of several, usually, in
a given subject), one that describes the experiements,
etc, that show the validity so that others can try.
When others start testing the assertions, and writing about
that, and have their writing reviewed and published,
let me know.
And when I say a journal, I mean a recognized scientific
journal, please.
So let me know, will you, who and what reviewed and
accepted each of those pages you pointed me to, please.
Oh, and if astrology works, why not apply for the JREF
prize? I'd think that would be a cool no-brainer
for you, so go to it.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>True, and not realizing that like Alchemy into chemistry and medicine,
>astrology is still evolving and is still useful.
Many things that don't work in the scientific sense are useful
to the human being.
That doesn't make them science.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible. This is
>called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
>premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
>important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
>entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
>all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
>argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
>no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
>astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
>the argument that definitely would lead us to different conclusions
>(most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please state your
>status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed. Logic, Hurley,
>91.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any?
Got any mundane proof? Got anything in your pocket but
evasive, misleading words?
Didn't think so. You're the one supporting the claim about
astrology, YOU provide the proof.
Astrology isn't a science until YOU can provide evidence of
falsifiable premises that can be reproduced at will by others,
and that confirm, beyond a strong statistical inference, that
there is positive evidence for astrology.
You simply wish to beg the question. I need have no knowledge
of astronomy, indeed I need have no knowledge of the actual,
physical surface of the moon, either, in order to debunk the
idea it's made of green cheese. I need have no idea of the
actual physical surface of pluto to ridicule the idea that
it's made of liquid Calcium Carbonate, either.
Your "claim" is nothing but evasion and avoidance.
You wish to dodge the facts, and insist that any
claim, no matter how wild, absurd, contra-physical,
or outright insulting, must be believed
unless the other person has knowledge of the process.
If the claim is false, no process truly exists,
and yet you demand same. You are simply hiding behind
a constructed fallacy. Your demand
is a preposterious position, and one that you should
be ashamed of even suggesting.
You wish to overtly push the burden of proof to the
disbeliever, but that's not how it works. What works
is that the SUPPORTER makes a case, and the case is
judged. If you can't make a case, you can't even
get the case judged, and you've failed to support
your contention that astrology is science.
The scientific method calls for proof from you, not disproof
from everyone else. Either YOU accept the scientific
method, or you don't call what you do "science".
So, stand up and show us all your reproducable, testable,
verifiable and falsifiable proof.
By the way, if you have proof, JREF has an award for
you, you can read about it at www.randi.org if you are
serious. You should read the rules there. They're quite
reasonable, and I wouldn't think you'd pass up a shot
at cool, hard cash, would you?
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>This works (provisionally) if you present Popper's doctrine as a method that
>scientists OUGHT to follow.
Indeed.
>I thought the claim was that Popperian methods are
>the ones that (successful) scientists do indeed follow.
If they are successful in the long term, they have followed
it, even if inadvertantly. Of course, that does not deny that
there may be "sublime mistakes", or the like, nor the fact
that like everyone else, scientists are human.
Scientists, being human like evreyone else, do make mistakes,
do allow their humanity to interfere, etc. That, among other
things, is what disclosure and criticism are there for.
Now, please tell me what you think of Wollman's argument
that the skeptic must have perfect knowledge of that
which s/he opposes, even where there is no knowledge
(of a true or meaningful sort) to be had?
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
>the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though
no confirmed knowledge exists to start with, before they
reject an absurd premise, is somehow "erudite"? Really?
If he said that the surface of the sun was made of dry ice,
and what we see is light bouncing off the "smoke", would I
have to know what "facts" were involved before I broke out
laughing? Really? I would have to personally visit the
surface of the sun? That's effectively what he demands.
Absurd!
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>The larger
>point -- about dogmatism -- is the defomation professionelle of the scientist:
>the tendency to transform a tiny bit of results into a vast metaphysical order.
This reminds me of what a politician (a successful one, too) once
said to me:
If you don't like it when somebody is proving you wrong,
call them dogmatic. Then they have to prove what you should have
had to prove.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Ophisios
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
> In article <3C3CF40F...@aol.com>, Ophisios <phi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >This works (provisionally) if you present Popper's doctrine as a method that
> >scientists OUGHT to follow.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >I thought the claim was that Popperian methods are
> >the ones that (successful) scientists do indeed follow.
>
> If they are successful in the long term, they have followed
> it, even if inadvertantly.
That is what is in question. It's an interesting debate. I don't pretend it's
been resolved one way or another, but the literature is fascinating and has
certainly transformed the way historians understand the development of modern
science. If you want nothing to do with it I guess that's your lookout, but if
you're interested in the topic (how science works) I should think you'd want to
take a look. But whatever.
>
> Now, please tell me what you think of Wollman's argument
> that the skeptic must have perfect knowledge of that
> which s/he opposes, even where there is no knowledge
> (of a true or meaningful sort) to be had?
If that is Wollman's argument, and even if it isn't, it is obviously fatally
flawed.
Ophisios
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
> In article <3C3D07A2...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
> >He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
> >the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
>
> Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
> others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though
> no confirmed knowledge exists to start with, before they
> reject an absurd premise, is somehow "erudite"? Really?
No. His erudition came through in his allusions and the writers he quoted.
>
>
> If he said that the surface of the sun was made of dry ice,
> and what we see is light bouncing off the "smoke", would I
> have to know what "facts" were involved before I broke out
> laughing? Really? I would have to personally visit the
> surface of the sun? That's effectively what he demands.
>
> Absurd!
True enough. At this point I don't really know what he's said. He used the term
"astrology." Some people think that means heavenly bodies quasi-physically
influencing how we feel and act. Those who know more about its history understand
that it is a metaphorical system, a kind of allegory of existence. The same thing
goes for alchemy -- the caricature of hermits trying to turn lead into gold has
almost no relation to what that practice really was. But I don't know what this
character thinks it is.
Ophisios
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
> In article <3C3D09F6...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The larger
> >point -- about dogmatism -- is the defomation professionelle of the scientist:
> >the tendency to transform a tiny bit of results into a vast metaphysical order.
>
> This reminds me of what a politician (a successful one, too) once
> said to me:
> If you don't like it when somebody is proving you wrong,
> call them dogmatic. Then they have to prove what you should have
> had to prove.
> --
For every analogy, there's a disanalogy, and we can't know in advance which is
relevant. I didn't just call you dogmatic, I cited an example of dogmatism. But
we've probably said all there is to say on that head. Even so, I must say I've
rarely if ever had so hard a time getting someone to admit that he might benefit
from reading a book or two on a topic about which he claims to care.
Ophisios
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
> In article <3C3D0C05...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Racqu...@hvc.rr.com wrote:
>
> >> It is not science any more than any subjective creation of
> >> man's imagination.
>
> >But science is, precisely, a subjective creation of man's imagination,
> >and a magnificent one.
>
> Certainly not magnificent if science includes astrology.
It was a techne of its day. Some lives are probably poorer for its demise, as
with the Greek gods.
Edmond Wollmann
> >He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
> >the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
> Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
> others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though
> no confirmed knowledge exists to start with,
You believe, you are telling us of you and your world view, and very
little of astrology. You don't know history do you, this knowledge of
astrology--the links I gave, is an academic accounting of astrological
history. Astrology is the father of almost every science.
Edmond Wollmann
>
> el...@no.spam wrote:
>
> > In article <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
> > >open.
> >
> > Open doesn't mean you have to believe what every kook on the
> > block is preaching, Edie. It would be really stupid to buy
> > what a fraud like you is selling no matter how "open" one's
> > mind is.
>
> Equally stupid to assume something is fraudulent because you've heard it
> is. Like people who won't give abstract expressionism a chance because
> those artists are "just frauds."
True, the Universe is full of exciting new things to learn and
explore--always, this is the sign of intelligence.
"He who thinks he knows--doesn't, but he who knows he doesn't know,
does." Joseph Campbell "The Power of The Myth"
Edmond Wollmann
The point is, that the intelligent person is interested in learning for
learning's sake, not to prove or disprove one or another thing as
"better" than another. Better is a subjective value judgment, there is
no one truth, except that the truth is the composition of all truths. If
there is a God--or ALL THAT IS as I prefer to call it, that underlies
and motivates the physical world as we know it, with its vast amounts of
space and 15 billion light years of time, would this identities'
perspective be one of petty rights and wrongs? I find this hard to
believe if so. I would rather think, that IT was in an ecstatic
exploration of the infiniteness of its existence, and that beyond that
it would allow all to be a part of its experience.
"The irrational fullness of life taught me never to discard anything,
even when it goes against all our theories . . . It is of course
disquieting, and one is not certain whether the compass is pointing true
or not; but security, certitude, and peace do not lead to discoveries. "
-C. G. JUNG
"Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of
the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the
mind. " -SIR FRANCIS BACON
Edmond Wollmann
> > > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > Astrology is an art/science
Thank you, these cyberthugs follow me everywhere I go, and try to demean
and denigrate all that I say.
"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in
fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster
Edmond Wollmann
> >5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
> >earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
> >combinations.
> However, the factors are arbitrarily delineated. What criteria has
> been developed by testing and experimentation in order to assign
> relevant "factors" and to assess their degree of relevance?
That is one of our big problems. Few astrologers have designed
experiements etc. as I have and so the problenm of operationalizing
astrology accurately has yet to be acomplished. There have been studies
with significance though, and because I believe the interpretive part of
astrology is an art, that part must be removed from any experimental
design.
> What
> testable process led to assigning the characteristics associated with
> the various sun signs?
Just like other sciences this came through observation, however in
astrology we have about 5000 years of observation.
>Is visibility to the unaided eye an essential
> requirement? Why? The implication is that gravity is an issue, but
I have covered a lot of these historical questions in my "Arguments
Against the Astrologers paper.
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm
> I'm not aware that anyone actually measured the gravitational effects
> of the various solar objects? If visibility is NOT a requirement,
But, begging the question that it is gravity that allows this
synchronous accord between man and cosmos.
> then there are several large moons which rival planetary size and, to
> my knowledge, play no part in this process.
We have asteroids in astrology as well.
> Astrology, for all its complexity and detail, is not objectively
> testable, nor is there any real experimental basis for the detail and
> design. It is not science any more than any subjective creation of
> man's imagination.
This is far too blunt of a statement for me to swallow. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.
Malthus
> Malthus wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com>
> wrote
>> > in
>> >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>
>> >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
>> >> > science if it don't work".
>
>> >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>
>> >> Beacon
>
>> > Astrology is an art/science
>> > http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
>
>
>> If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the
> effects
>> of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the
> known
>> planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for
> themselves.
>
>
> Newspaper and SunSign astrology is compared to real astrology, like
> "Ask
> Ann Landers" is to real clinical psychology.
You don't address my point.
I take it that you disown astrologers who are now incorporating KX76
into their readings? Are you not going to incorporate it into your own?
Why not? How do you know they're wrong?
After all, KX76 IS out there; are its astrological effects as great as,
say, Neptune's? If not, why not?
>
> Thank you for your interest in astrology and this group.
>
> If you are willing to supply accurate and exact information I am sure
> some astrologers may be willing to help if they can.
Don't patronise me, thank you.
> Astrology is NOT
> what is generally accepted and spun by newspapers and the media etc.
> based only on sunsigns,
I don't doubt that if "serious" astrologers sit down face to face with a
customer and do a complex reading with all the angles and transits and
stuff, they get the customer saying ooh and ah and that's amazing, every
so often. Satisfied customer.
But the really interesting thing about newspaper sun sign astrology is
that it "works" too. Every so often they'll get a hit. Satisfied
customer.
How do you differentiate between them? The mechanism is the same.
To put it another way, the newspaper I work for once published the wrong
day's sun sign horoscopes - and no one noticed; there was not a peep of
complaint (unlike the flood of grumpiness we'd have got if we'd
published the wrong day's tide tables). Satisfied customers.
Try that on your next 10 or 20 customers. Do your reading based on
someone else's chart. Notice how they STILL say ooh and ah and that's
amazing. Satisfied customers.
--
Nigel Malthus,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~kh
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Edmond Wollmann
Of course!
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
Einstein
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain, and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein
Edmond Wollmann
address, are not me, but Rick Lazzarini, he has been stalking me for 6
years now. He will try to make me look stupid and trick you into
thinking I wopuld write such non-sense. He is a sick rich person. He
even bought Wollmann.com!! You can read about this abuse here:
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/charter.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/abusive_isps_list.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
Here's his header posting from alt.net, I post from earthlink.net and
astroconsulting.com is my domain.
Path:
newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.alt.net!usenet
From:
Edmond Wollmann <apex...@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
sci.skeptic, alt.astrology,
alt.astrology.metapsych, misc.education
Subject:
Re: Science Vs. Astrology
Date:
Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:09:28 -0800
Organization:
Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access -
http://www.altopia.com
Lines:
77
Message-ID:
<B8627018.666C%apex...@aol.com>
References:
<Gpn5y...@research.att.com>
<g2X_7.24958$8s4.1...@news.indigo.ie>
<3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>
<PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>
<GpouH...@research.att.com> <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>
<Pine.SOL.3.96.1020109234501.10690r-100000@mail>
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
User-Agent:
Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309
X-No-Archive:
Yes
X-Received-Date:
Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:07:26 PST
(newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net)
Xref:
newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
sci.skeptic:570412 alt.astrology:462850 alt.astrology.metapsych:123662
misc.education:159016
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> On 1/9/02 8:55 PM, in article
> Pine.SOL.3.96.1020109234501.10690r-100000@mail, "Jim Phillips"
> <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
> >>> Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>> Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
> >>>
> >>>> If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
> >>>> of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
> >>>> planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
> >>>
> >>> Yup.
> >
> > Never mind the fact that Uranus, Neptune & Pluto didn't find their
> > way into astrological horoscopes until after they'd been discovered by
> > astronomers. Imagine that...
>
> AHA!
>
> So modern astrology owes its presence to the science of astronomy!
>
> >
> >>>> Hint: It's been there for aeons.
> >>>
> >>>> Dunderheads.
> >>>
> >>> You're too kind.
> >>>
> >>> I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night,
> >>
> >> Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
> >
> > Because it would be a waste of time, unless you are in need of
> > sleep?
>
> Bingo.
>
> >Because professional astrologers are no better than I am at matching
> > people to charts?
>
> Ognib.
>
> >Because astrologers have never been able to explain why
> > two people born at the same place and time can have very different lives?
>
> B
> I
> N
> G
> O.
> >
> >> I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
> >
> > "Open, intelligent minds" = agree with Edmond.
> >
> > Snip of nonsense
> >
> > Here's
>
> B
>
> I
>
> N
>
> G
>
> O
>
> !
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible. This is
> >called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
> >premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
> >important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
> >entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
> >all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
> >argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
> >no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
> >astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
> >the argument that definitely would lead us to different conclusions
> >(most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please state your
> >status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed. Logic, Hurley,
> >91.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any?
Extraordinary is a subjective value judgment, extraordinary to whom??
This sounds like debunkeritus disease. Simply because your consciousness
is not used to an idea is no indication of its strangeness, only your
unfamiliarity with the ideas. As I said to another poster, the Maya
would consider science a strange and goffy kind of witchcraft, and would
not be wrong for thinking so, only strange to the idea.
> Got any mundane proof? Got anything in your pocket but
> evasive, misleading words?
Prove you exist, other than as some translated letters of the alphabet
by my computer. I will wager you cannot. I gave you links to articles
with client corraborations, did you read them? I have been counseling
for 25 years, I can demonstrate astrology any time you wish, but I need
real data--time/date/place of birth.
> Didn't think so. You're the one supporting the claim about
> astrology, YOU provide the proof.
I do not do tricks for doubting Thomases, if you do not ptrefer what I
prefer, so be it. I will not force anything on you. I have confidence in
what I do, you would not ask a psychologist "go ahead, tell me my
dysfuntional tendencies" whilst talking to them on usenet would you?
> Astrology isn't a science until YOU can provide evidence of
> falsifiable premises that can be reproduced at will by others,
> and that confirm, beyond a strong statistical inference, that
> there is positive evidence for astrology.
I never said astrology was a science, I said it was an art/science, or
have you already lost the train of this thread?
> You simply wish to beg the question. I need have no knowledge
> of astronomy, indeed I need have no knowledge of the actual,
> physical surface of the moon, either, in order to debunk the
> idea it's made of green cheese. I need have no idea of the
> actual physical surface of pluto to ridicule the idea that
> it's made of liquid Calcium Carbonate, either.
And I have no need of your approval to use astrology to help people
understand themselves either.
> Your "claim" is nothing but evasion and avoidance.
> You wish to dodge the facts, and insist that any
> claim, no matter how wild, absurd, contra-physical,
> or outright insulting, must be believed
> unless the other person has knowledge of the process.
> If the claim is false, no process truly exists,
> and yet you demand same. You are simply hiding behind
> a constructed fallacy. Your demand
> is a preposterious position, and one that you should
> be ashamed of even suggesting.
I sir, have studied the subject, you have not.
> You wish to overtly push the burden of proof to the
> disbeliever, but that's not how it works. What works
> is that the SUPPORTER makes a case, and the case is
> judged. If you can't make a case, you can't even
> get the case judged, and you've failed to support
> your contention that astrology is science.
I create my reality you do not.
> The scientific method calls for proof from you, not disproof
> from everyone else. Either YOU accept the scientific
> method, or you don't call what you do "science".
I have created and designed experiments, please don't be so
condesending.
> So, stand up and show us all your reproducable, testable,
> verifiable and falsifiable proof.
My clients, some psychologists with their own clinical practices, state
that they are changed and find value in a consultation with me, and that
their insight into themselves and their lives is improved. That is all
the proof I need. I am attending Kepler University, the first University
for degrees in astrology. I will no doubt assist in designing
experiements to help those with woodenheaded thinking problems such as
yourself understand the phenomenion little better.
> By the way, if you have proof, JREF has an award for
> you, you can read about it at www.randi.org if you are
> serious. You should read the rules there. They're quite
> reasonable, and I wouldn't think you'd pass up a shot
> at cool, hard cash, would you?
Oh please, and here I was actually talking seriouskly to you.
I am not interested in Kooks like Randi. He is not a scientist, or a
skeptic. He is a spinic.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and sarcasm.
SPINIC=A negative sneering faultfinder regarding paradigms he/she is
completly ig-no-rant of who rants illogically on them anyway because of
bias and predjudice.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
"A physician without a knowledge of astrology has no right to call
himself a physician." Hippocrates
Edmond Wollmann
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> > > >Beacon wrote:
> >
> > > >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> > > >> message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> >
> > > >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> > > >> > science if it don't work".
> >
> > > >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> >
> > > >> Beacon
> >
> > > >Astrology is an art/science
> >
> > > Astrology is no science.
> >
> > Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
>
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with this situation. The basic
> claims of astrology are known to anyone who's ever heard of it. The fact
> that astrology is completely incapable of doing what it claims to be able to
> do is easy to understand.
>
> snip
Astrology doesn't claim anything, people do. Astrology is an
art/science.
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
Einstein
--
Edmond Wollmann
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
> > > In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
> > > Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
> > > >If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the effects
> > > >of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due to the known
> > > >planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing for themselves.
> > > Yup.
Irrelevant, astrology is not a science.
> Never mind the fact that Uranus, Neptune & Pluto didn't find their
> way into astrological horoscopes until after they'd been discovered by
> astronomers. Imagine that...
Irrelevant, if you read my article on the astrology of the Maya, you
will see the 9 levels of heaven etc., and in the ancient orient the
same. It is a psychological tool, not a mechanistic cog.
The Horoscope is a Mandala. It is divided into polarities of masculine
and feminine, as well as the four temperament types found in the Kiersey
temperament sorter and Jung's four psychological functions in
psychology. These are related to the four Cardinal points, the elements
and the persona creation through belief, emotion, and thought.
According to Carl Jung each individual has a masculine and feminine
side. Masculine, positive or active being animus and feminine, negative
or passive being the anima. The successful integration of these aspects
within each individual allows for the defensive aspects of personality
to be virtually non- existent, and dis-ease all but eliminated.
Biologically, this concept corresponds to the active and passive
transport of nutrients and chemicals in a cell.
Jung took Astrology seriously and regarded it as fundamental, and
representative of his ideas with regard to the Mandala.
"Originally he regarded astrology as a function of time...but must
be understood as a "stream of energy filled with qualities,"so that the
time quality peculiar to that moment of a man's birth also attaches to
his character and possibly to his fate as well.
The old astrological stellar myths are expressions of these
intuitively grasped time qualities. They are archetypal images,
involuntary creations of the "knowing unconscious," which primitive
man projected upon the stars. Jung wrote in a letter in (June 1960):
'"We must bear in mind that we do not make projections, rather they
happen to us. This fact permits the conclusion that we originally read
our first physical, and particularly psychological, insights in the
stars. In other words, what is farthest is actually nearest. Somehow, as
the Gnostics surmised, we have "collected" ourselves from out of the
cosmos."'
The Mandala is almost always a circular shape (which symbolizes the
soul or whole self, that contains designs, and is often divided into
four parts. The horoscope, although a mathematical representation of
celestial positioning, is also a Mandala, and therefore requires an
Art/Science approach to delineation.
"Jung's conception of personality is complex...His observations often
dwelled on the multiple, contradictory forces in life: 'I see in all
that happens the play of opposites' (1963, p. 235). Yet he was also one
of the first to conceptualize a self that actively strives for oneness
and unity. Jung saw the self (the striving for wholeness) as an
archetype that is expressed in many ways. The expressions of the
striving for wholeness include the Mandala (a magic circle archetype)
and various religious and transcendental experiences. He devoted much of
his life to the study of these expressions in primitive societies,
alchemy, mythology, dreams, and symbols. To achieve unity and wholeness,
the individual must become increasingly aware of the wisdom available in
his or her personal and collective unconscious and must learn to live in
harmony with it..."
Mandala....Well, it is just one typical archetypal form. It is what is
called ultimo exquadra circulae, the square in the circle, or the circle
in the square. It is an age-old symbol that goes right back to the
pre-history of man. It is all over the Earth and it either expresses the
Deity or the self; and these two terms are psychologically very much
related, which doesn't mean that I believe that God is the self or that
the self is the God. I made the statement that there is a psychological
relation, and there is plenty of evidence for that." "It is, we should
say, the main archetype."
"Introduction to Personality" chapter 3 "Ego Psychology and Object
Relations"p 69, Walter Mischel, Columbia University, Harcourt-Brace,
1993.
Question from Dr. Evans;
Dr. Jung, there has been much discussion about how certain
experiences in the early years influence the formation of the ego. For
example, one of the most extreme views concerning such early influences
was advanced by Otto Rank. He spoke of the birth trauma and suggested
that the trauma of being born would not only leave a very powerful
impact on the developing ego, but would have a residual influence
throughout the life of the individual.
Dr. Jung;
I should say that it is very important for an ego that it is born;
this is highly traumatic, you know, when you fall out of heaven.
"Mythology is a pronouncing of a series of images that formulate the
life of archetypes."
"If somebody is clever enough to see what is going on in people's
minds, in their unconscious minds, he will be able to predict."
"Conversations with Carl Jung", Richard I. Evans, Van Nostrand, 1964.
Regarding Alfred Adler
"When people make very positive statements about themselves in our
presence, they make us look bad by comparison. Dismissing braggart's
exaggerated claims and assuming they are just trying to cover up their
inadequacies would seem to save us from feeling inferior relative to
them." "Personality Theories", Chapter 4, page 85, 1994, Allyn and
Bacon.
In regard to "hardiness and alienation" (Leak & Williams, 1989b).
Hardiness consisted of 3 factors: commitment, challenge and control.
"Commitment involves an active approach to coping with life's
challenges...because of a sense of courage and psychological tolerance"
(pg 370). "Challenge entails a perception that novel events and changing
circumstances offer an opportunity for development (pg 370).. (the
developmental aspects in the horoscope). Control "refers to a belief in
personal, internal control over the events in ones life" (370)..(the
belief in self empowerment and reality creation).
Adlerians (Aquarian oriented counselors) are more likely to view people
in terms of wishes, expectations, goals, convictions and mistaken
perceptions, not in terms of needs conflicts, drives and pleasure.
The primary question in relation to patients is "What purpose does the
symptom serve?" not "What caused the symptom?" The therapists interest
is forward looking not backward looking.
"The style of life is an original, psychological orientation that
contains the individual's relatively permanent LAW OF MOVEMENT (or Noel
Tyl's law of naturalness or my law of momentum flow), the direction
taken (the horoscopic vibrational frequency) by the person that
originates in his or her ability to exercise free choice in fully
exploiting personal capabilities and resources (Adler 1933a).
"Personality Theories", Chapter 4, page 82, 1994, Allyn and Bacon.
Psychology, therefore is simply the recognition of the resulting
behavior of the identity's integration and developmental tension in the
resolution of the levels of psychic material of the self, and is
reflected synchronistically through the horoscope a basic archetypal
mandala. Synchronicity is correlation-not causation.
Astrology/psychology and physics are all one thing. Consciousness
creates matter and reflects it through the mind/matter mirror of
physicality.
Personality construct="This will be the tool that you consider your
personality or the person to be. The personality not being who or what
you are, but an artificial tool, so to speak, of the higher
consciousness, of the oversoul, that serves the purpose of being, I'll
say, the representative symbol that the oversoul uses to interact with
physical reality, or interact as the idea of physical reality. It is the
diplomat or representative of the soul in physical reality." "The New
Metaphysics" Bashar page 20, definitions, 1987.
> > > >Hint: It's been there for aeons.
> > >
> > > >Dunderheads.
> > >
> > > You're too kind.
> > >
> > > I read my "entertainment horiscope" in the paper last night,
> >
> > Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
>
> Because it would be a waste of time, unless you are in need of
> sleep? Because professional astrologers are no better than I am at matching
> people to charts? Because astrologers have never been able to explain why
> two people born at the same place and time can have very different lives?
>
> > I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
>
> "Open, intelligent minds" = agree with Edmond.
>
> Snip of nonsense
>
> Here's a much better reference: http://www.smbtech.com/ed.
>
> --
> Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net (remove 's' to e-mail)
> "He preferred the harsh truth to his dearest illusion. That is the heart
> of science." -- Carl Sagan, "Cosmos"
--
Edmond Wollmann
>
> > In article <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
> > >open.
>
> fall out.
It's also good to have sayings that don't date you and signal your
mental state.
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >Why not read some academic papers on astrology instead of the newspaper?
> >I have created some pages for those with open, intelligent minds.
> Oh, goodie, when you get them peer reviewed and accepted
> for publication in IEEE information theory, a
> recognized Physics journal, or something lik
The first one entitled "Compare and Contrast The Different Models of
Fate, Free Will, and Astrological Determinism" has been published in the
American Federation of Astrologers Research Journal, spring 2001, and
the other will follow (3) over the next three issues.
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
I also have a referenced book. Did you have anything we could review?
Edmond Wollmann
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:08:12 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >Beacon wrote:
> >> Ophisios <phi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C3C83BC...@aol.com...
> >> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >> > > Beacon wrote:
> >> > > > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> >> > > > message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
> >> > > > > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
> >> > > > > science if it don't work".
> >> > > > cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
> >> > > > Beacon
> >> > > Astrology is an art/science
> >> > > I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
> >> > > http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
> >> > Again, the criterion of success is a somewhat different way of looking at
> >> > science from what Popper envisions. The question of what it means to
> >> > succeed, what counts as success, etc., raises a lot of issues that go
> >> > beyond accounts of science that concentrate only on verification and
> >> > falsification. In the case of astrology, what it means to succeed is
> >> > qualitatively different from success in modern astronomy. The two
> >> > discourses are simply incommensurable. To say that astronomy is "better"
> >> > than astronomy is a importantly like saying that Milton's version of
> >> Samson
> >> > and the Philistines is "better" than the one in Judges. Milton's seems
> >> > better to us because it presents rounded characters with vivid inner
> >> lives,
> >> > whereas the Biblical account is comparatively flat. However, our
> >> > preference for rounded individuality is in large part a function of
> >> > Milton's stylistic innovations. We judge "Samson Agonistes" to be
> >> superior
> >> > to Judges only from the point of view of "Samson Agonistes," not from that
> >> > of some detached spectator with a universal measure.
> >Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
> >HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This document
> >wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university professors,
> >some Nobel Prize winners. The idea being to put an end, once and for
> >all, to public interest and belief in the nebulous pseudo-science. After
> >all, these are scientists; objective students of observation, right?
> >Wrong!
> >The only one I have read (although I would like to think there are
> >others) that made an intelligent response to the HUMANIST, was Carl
> >Sagan. In his letter to the editor, he stated:
> >"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
> >statement, not because I feel that astrology has any validity
> >whatsoever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the
> >statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the
> >origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well
> >for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To
> >discuss the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology
> >seems to me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can
> >think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No
> >mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was
> >proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and
> >those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
> >Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
> >impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
> By which Sagan quite correctly states that scientists err when they
> attempt to go beyond the limitations of scientific process. Science
> cannot state that something is right, nor should they claim it to be
> "wrong" unless they can unambiguously PROVE it wrong. Sagan quite
> clearly indicates that Astrology fails the test for the requirements
> of scientific endeavor, but ALSO correctly holds out the possibility
> that there may be some scientific basis WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
> DEMONSTRATED TO THIS POINT. This is hardly a ringing endorsement.
He is pointing out quite simply, that absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence and that true skeptics withhold judgments as to
validity because they know there may be undiscovered mechanisms that
later validate them---and that all knowledge is tentative at best.
Edmond Wollmann
> > Indeed.
I did not say that, but I am saying one cannot argue something they
oppose with NO knowledge, this is simply bigotry.
Edmond Wollmann
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>The point is, that the intelligent person is interested in
>learning for learning's sake, not to prove or disprove one or
>another thing as "better" than another.
I've been reading your book tonite, Edmo. It rapidly leads me
to the conclusion that you should not be speaking of what an
intelligent person is interested in.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
[nothing]
He's not even here, moron. Why are you so obsessed with
someone that's moved on?
Michael Davis
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Astrology is an art/science
>
> > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > an art/science too.
>
> No, you are talking about religion now.
Astrology = Religion.
HTH
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Member #234978 the "I Have Been Netkkkopped By Eddie" club.
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
Abuse admins: If this post was reported to you, see www.smbtech.com/ed
That Wollmann Asshole
news:B8628554.6B05%apex...@aol.com:
> On 1/9/02 11:10 PM, in article 3C3D3E...@astroconsulting.com,
> "Edmond Wollmann" <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> Ophisios wrote:
>>
>>> Racqu...@hvc.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>>> It is not science any more than any subjective creation of man's
>>>> imagination.
>>
>>> But science is, precisely, a subjective creation of man's
>>> imagination, and a magnificent one.
>>
>> Of course!
>
> Is it a two for one sale on idiots today?
>
Got a twin we don't know about, kook?
Did you have any plagiarism to discuss, thief?
That Wollmann Asshole
news:3C3D3D...@astroconsulting.com:
> Racqu...@hvc.rr.com wrote:
>
>> >5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
>> >earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
>> >combinations.
>
>> However, the factors are arbitrarily delineated. What criteria has
>> been developed by testing and experimentation in order to assign
>> relevant "factors" and to assess their degree of relevance?
>
> That is one of our big problems. Few astrologers have designed
> experiements etc. as I have and so the problenm of operationalizing
> astrology accurately has yet to be acomplished.
Edmo, you talk about it and have no proof that you can do so. The last
time testing was discussed you simply butted in and acted like you were
the authority and whined about everyone else's ideas. You contributed
nothing and tried to netcop everyone who saw it differently.
> There have been studies
> with significance though, and because I believe the interpretive part of
> astrology is an art, that part must be removed from any experimental
> design.
But Edmo! That's why you claimed it couldn't be tested! Are you lying now,
then, or both times?
>> What
>> testable process led to assigning the characteristics associated with
>> the various sun signs?
>
> Just like other sciences this came through observation, however in
> astrology we have about 5000 years of observation.
After 5000 years there are no results? That sounds pretty hard to believe,
it's a good thing you wandered along to straighten out all those stupid
astrologers. OH! Didn't you claim you were an astrologer 1000 times in
Babylon? You sure did! I guess I should be wondering why you didn't get
this stuff cleared up then. Could it be that you're a kook?
>>Is visibility to the unaided eye an essential requirement? Why? The
>>implication is that gravity is an issue, but
>
> I have covered a lot of these historical questions in my "Arguments
> Against the Astrologers paper.
> http://astrocons.com/kookwhines.htm <-De-Kookified!!!1!!!
Eddieee! You *know* links to *commercial* websites are against the
charter! How does it serve you to be an abuser, abuser?
>
>> I'm not aware that anyone actually measured the gravitational effects
>> of the various solar objects? If visibility is NOT a requirement,
>
> But, begging the question that it is gravity that allows this
> synchronous accord between man and cosmos.
Did you think that was a coherent sentence? This is why your book needed
an editor and why it has at least 11 grammatical errors on the back cover
alone.
>> then there are several large moons which rival planetary size and, to
>> my knowledge, play no part in this process.
>
> We have asteroids in astrology as well.
Not to mention stars like Orion. <snicker>
>> Astrology, for all its complexity and detail, is not objectively
>> testable, nor is there any real experimental basis for the detail and
>> design. It is not science any more than any subjective creation of
>> man's imagination.
>
> This is far too blunt of a statement for me to swallow. Absence of
> evidence is not evidence of absence.
Once again Edmo tries this stupid argument. If there's no fucking proof
after 5000 years, there's a better case to be made that there isn't any.
No wonder the folks at Kepler told you to hit the bricks, you refuse to
learn anything.
I'm sure Bernadette Brady will teach you something, you thieving scumbag.
That Wollmann Asshole
>
>
> Spamster wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>> >
>> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Astrology is an art/science
>> >
>> > > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and
>> > > gullible is an art/science too.
>> >
>> > No, you are talking about religion now.
>>
>> No, we were talking about a kook, you to be exact.
>
> He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as
> one of the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
>
Really? You haven't been around long. Here's some of Eddieeeee's best
kookfarts, enjoy them:
"Repeating websters definitions is irrelevant. It was written from
physically focused and unspiritual beings for materialistic reference."
-Ed Wollmann, decrying the evilness that seeps out of a dictionary
"I WAS POSTING INTELLIGENT AND POLITE POSTS UNTIL I GOT SICK OF YOU
FUCKING SCIENTOLOGY AND OTHER NUTS TRYING TO RUN ALT.ASTROLOGY-" Ed
Wollmann, running out of intelligent and polite posts rather early, 10/97
"...I flipped my mustang end over end into a ditch in NM and killed my
best friend (I grew up with) who was a passenger..." -Ed "I killed
someone so this must be a real character builder" Wollmann
"If I find that this post was canceled, I will be suing you for violating
my publishing companies copyright, got that ass hole?" -Ed the crazy
fuckstick
"I have learned wonderful things from everyone I have known." -Ed Wollmann
"It makes me want to snip." -Ed
"Why am I an asshole?" -Ed Wollmann
"Marsha is welcome to post here anytime. And when I finish killing all
you spammers, we will talk like we used to." -Ed
"FU asshole. I'll post more tomorrow now just because you said that." -
Ed Wollmann
"You could very well be a rich bitch I have
pissed off, there have been a few you know." -Ed
"a full force campaign to separate you from usenet will ensue" -EdWollmann
"This is a false conclusion, simply because I cannot
produce a cancel does not mean you cannot nuke it, you can fool others
but not me." - Edmo
"Oh for christs sake, you don't understand a thing I say do you? -Eddie
"[insert usual whine here]" - Ed Wollmann
"Are you saying studying flowers is evil?" - Ed Wollmann
"Its so comforting knowing you will never have a man." -Ed the
non-counselor
"No one is censoring anyone stop your CONTINOUS
SPINNING."...Eddieeeeeee Wollmann, Bully, censor, asshole.
"I STARTED NOTHING BUT I AM GOING TO END IT. NO!!!! I am not going to stop
anything, I have been taken advantage of, decieved and abused here, and
now that they have made the most determined person on the planet angry
they are going to suffer the consequesnces. I asked and tried all the
polite stuff and was still abused. Now I shall FORCE the issue to
conclusion." -EdWollmann
"What the fuck are you talking about drug addict? Are you ODing
again on them?" -Ed Wollmann, the sensitive, nurturing, professional
counselor-NOT!
"HOW DOES IT SERVE YOU TO TELL YOU OF YOUR OUT OF
INTEGRITY YOU????" -Ed, in a tantrum
"Your days of denigrating people by calling them kooks when they expose
your control freakishness is over people!"- Ed
"Maybe next time Mr. Bailey, you might wish to hire a "silly"
professional astrologer like myself to consult before you put up sites"
-Ed Wollmann
"There's not even time for masturbation!" -Ed Wollmann
"We have lived on many other planets." -Ed Wollmann
"Chinese, Japanese, Americanese. Get on them anonym! You lousy
astrologer! Your master calls to you!! Bow!! Come to ME and I will give
YOU a masters course!!!!" -Ed Wollmann
"Its YOUR VENGANCE SEEKING OVERGROWN 5 year old that is wrecking this
group you spoiled abusive arrogant brat. All because he has to go out
and get revenge for your inability to handle your own life, and keep
your legs closed.Get out. Or post astrology." -Ed Wollmann
"Follow ups to poster, if you are hostile or unfriendly and send me mail,
be prepared to lose your account." -Ed
"You really don't think you are explaining something to me-- do you you
arrogant fucking bitch? " -Ed Wollmann
"I will train you or him, there is no test you can construct to test me,
I test you." -Ed Wollmann
"QQQQUUUUAAAAKKKKEEESSSS and FFFFFLLLLLOOOOODDDDSSSS
are DE-structurizing" -Ed Wollmann
"I answered in non-pretyped form.TWICE." -Ed
"Whhat is you moon in?" -Ed
"I have even received letters from confused readers who have purchased
my text and were baffled..." -Ed Wollmann
"Yeah, yeah, yeah Mr. Big man hides behind Deja News." -Ed
"Where do you want to meet? How about the roller coaster-be warned I will
have officers with me." -Ed Wollmann, coward.
"Nothing can be proven TO anyone"-Edmo
"You are abusing this group again asshole. Are you going to put a page up
on yourself ?? You dumb fuck. Why don't you answer the SDSU staff as to
why you put your fucking idiotic page up? I am speaking to the President
of the university soon to have you and Bailey shut down. And ask the
owner's wife how I stood over the little booth at SDSU and told every
single student not to get Aznet-she'll tell you. And everytime they try
to sell accounts there I will stop it. Until your fucking defamation
page comes down-you got that you dumb fuck???
A POST TO NANAU WILL GO FOR EVERY ONE OF YOUR ABUSIVE POSTS--GOT THAT
PUNK?" -Ed Wollmann, peacefully asking to peacefully communicate.
"For the sake of the newsgroup I am going to get off for good." Ed
Wollmann, liar, 12/7/97
"If you wish to keep trying I am sure someone will. I am leaving town."Ed
Wollmann, 4/2/98
"Cencorship continues, so here's my last post" - Ed Wollmann, lying
again, 3/18/99
"I am no longer posting and all messages you see are forgeries." Ed
Wollmann,continual liar 5/26/99 (and various dates thereafter)
"I am permanently off usenet as of 7/20/99 --Ed Wollmann, proven liar
"I am permanently off usenet as of 7/29/99" - Ed Wollmann, pathological
liar
"I sent a notice to new.admin.net-abuse.sightings that I would not be
posting anymore. I have been successfully bullied off usenet under the
artificail lable and guise of being a bully. A spin that with such
voluminous postings and attacks I simply cannot reverse, nor do I care
to."
-Ed, 9/14/97
"I have abandoned the newsgroup I created, alt.astrology.metapsych if
anyone wishes to use it for posting astrology subjects it is there for
their use." -Ed, 9/14/97
"Since my work has degenerated into name calling and more abuse
to defeat me because my arguments weren't, I have no choice but to
withdraw from usenet and do my other work." -Ed, 9/14/97
"My goal was to be of service and to upgrade awareness on the subjects at
hand. Since that has now changed I have no reason to concern myself with
it. " -Ed, 9/14/97
"Since this serves no constructive purpose and serves no one generally,
it really is simple logic for me to just withdraw." -Ed, 9/14/97
"Now I am sure someone will not feel content with the fact that I am not
going to post anymore and take this post and do the demeaning,
belittling, and trashing act so commonplace on usenet. So be it. " -
Ed,9/14/97
"ARCTURUS- ... This star is the center of many solar systems "-Ed the
idiot
"I am going to send complaints to Bellsouth and Pacbell
from every account I can get on thwe (sic) planet."-Ed Wollmann
"Be careful people you have moved right into my grip now".-Ed Wollmann
"I contacted an FBI agent and corruption in the legal system was found."
-Edmo the Paranoid Moron.
"YOU imbecile-YOOOOOOUUUUU attacked me-YOUU idiot. I simply talked to a
few people. YOOOOUUU guys are intent on censoring me and removing me
from a public group".-Ed Wollmann
"She gave me nothing-I on the other hand gave her a nice pair of tweety
bird panties, a nice silk get up, and a camping trip to look at the real
constellation of Scorpio." -Ed the tweety bird panty giver.
"I would never do to a past love what you did to me. You are disgusting,
and it will be my pleasure watching you grow old alone." Ed the no-so
sensitive, not-too mature, and unstable nutcase.
"Good thing your opinions are worthless." Ed, being as tolerant as he
can possibly be.
"If you are a male, avoid this viper, she is known as the rich bitch on
the hill." Ed the wierdo.
"I do do laundry. I have to because there will be no females in this
house for the next 20 years." Ed Wollmann, Masturbator.
"Your days are numbered..." - Ed Wollmann, threatening again.
"...they should be aware that not all customers are
"oh really" people who don't think they know how to read things
themselves." -Ed, on "oh really" people.
"You need to see a chirpractic perspective adjuster bud." -Edmo
"You insulting fucking bastard." -Ed the "counselor"
"YOU condescending assholes, you are as arrogant as they come aren'tyou?"-
Ed
"Perhaps if you could stop judging me for a while and listen to
what I say, you might find I AM walking the talk." -Edmo
"I have the FORESIGHT to KNOW what is going to happen " -Edmo
"Wrong. I am going to SUE THE FUCK OUT OF YOU."-Edmo
"The records show that I remove every post from metapsych you abusers
make. This is IRRELEVANT." -Edmo
"When you stop pimping whores, beating your wife, abusing drugs, and are
not forging headers." -Ed Wollmann "She is the shitball"--Ed Wollmann.
"Tell me people what court would find me guilty of ANYthing?"- Spoken 4
months after being declared GUILTY and CONVICTED of a MISDEMEANOR (Penal
Code VIolation 555, Unlawful Entry) by Ed Wolmann, 10/31 (scary, huh?)
"How does abusing people make them nice?" -Edmo
"Please tell me how aggravating, harassing, spamming, posting off topic,
and violating all of usnet and Southwestbell.net's policies everyday
is nice or is going to make me "nice"?"-Edmo.
"Now why are you continuing to crosspost to metapsych you fucking
troublemaker!!!" Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Now they are gone and 2 complete imbeciles (Ellis and anonym) have
replaced them, and instead of making it 2 separated groups like I
intended with them spamming this one and those who were serious about
counsel and might wish to discuss with me and others and NOT download
800 "astrology is bunk" posts all day, they try to change the charter
and spam that group WORSE, now YOU LISTEN TO ME AND LISTEN GOOD, IF THAT
IS NOT OCD CONTROL FREAKISH BEHAVIOR, YOU BEST GO GET A BOOK AND READ
UP"- Ed, in a froth"Inconsiderate fucking cynic." Edmond Wollmann
P.M.A.F.A.
"Whoopdiedoodledaday! Cynics can post all fucking year
-but let me post a couple of remarks and whooooooaaaa!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am unlike anyone you have ever met and ever will-
don't pigeon hole me you son of a bitch!" -Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am Just analytically correct-
you are ugly as fuck inside and out."-Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Now whos the fucking bully asshole?" -Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Wait till we meet in person ass hole I'll rip you
a new one then too." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch." -Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Snipped your 196th spam of you fucking URL I will never go to and no
one gives a shit about." -Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
" Get out-if you think I'll ever let go of your ass you've got another
thing coming." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I guess when you stop pimping whores, molesting children, forging
headers, raping and killing people" Edmond Wollmann, unbalanced
unlicensed fraudulent non-counselor, 6/14/99
"...if the son of a bitch was in front of
me he'd have some bones crushed in his skull as well" --Ed "Sensitive
phony Counselor and Violently-Tempered Kook" Wollmann, PMAFA
"You haven't posted anything but bullshit-the difference between me nd
you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl (I was a hoodlum biker
for>years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck out of you, talk like
this-AND STILL post something of value, counsel persons and meitate on
nature, and do a piece of art to find center. You see I've been thee done
that-I CHOOSE to do this now." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"WHat a buch of out of integrity losesers."-Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Well then, why are these posts an many others being censored from AOL? I
go to AOL and only half (usually my objections) are the only ones that
make it? These guys have the NOCEM affect behind them. I notice now you
are posting from mindspring, which means like the C4A fake you are
trying either to assess me or spin me to protect the abusers. Most
likely then an admin who is biased against me and wants evidence to
further spin me. Most who are posting about astrology to not use tricky
configurations. You guys NOCEM just in case I make sense and you can't
answer and I make you look foolish-which you know will happen if you try
to argue long enough with me." -Edmo, dipping deeeeeeeep into the sweet
nectar of his paranoia....
"It demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, that without unfair
advantage economically, and by social position, that you and all others
you support in your abuse campaign would have lost your accounts because
of your belief in domination and powerless beliefs that are out of
integrity. "-Edmo 7/14/99
"GGGGGEEEETTTT IIIIIITTTTT OOOOOUUUUUUTTTTTTT!!!!!" - Edmond
WollmannP.M.A.F.A
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!" - Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I could be anywhere all at once." -Ed Wollmann
"Unknown to you are top persons in Pacific Bell Telesis, who are clients
of mine. This will be interesting to see if they who know me personally
or you who make propagandic spins of me and who is delusioned."-EdWollmann
"Looks like the entertainment community will be paying me damages too." -
Ed
"Why would I be on the verge of a nervous breakdown?"-EdWollmann
"No astrology? Gee and you post the same spammed fucking
messages everyday--I don't have to know how usenet works, I know what is
right and *****IIIIIII****** am going to end this you understand????"-Ed
Wollmann "FUCK OFF--- YOU WILL GET OUT. OR WE WILL GO FOR 100 YEARS. AND
I AM GOING TO TAKE YOU TO COURT AND BRING YOU DOWN TO SHIT PUNK, GOT
THAT???? Usenet will not end it now, you have made your bed and now I am
going to put you in it." -Ed Wollmann
"I AM GOING TO RAKE YOU THROUGH THE COALS YOU SON OF A BITCH, I am going
to hound you for the rest of your fucking miserable fucking life until I
break you. got it??? YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, WHEN SOMEONE GETS ME THIS
DETERMINED THEERE IS NOWHERE ON THE PLANET YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HIDE
NOW"-Ed Wollmann
"THERE ARE 80,000 USENET NEWSGROUPS!!!! YOU ASSHOLES SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF
THE *ONE* I CREATED WITH A CHARTER THAT INDICATES YOUR HARASSMENT,
STALKING AND DEFAMATION IS NOT WELCOME AND IS ****OOOOFFFFF TOPIC***
NOW WHAT KIND OS PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISTURBED FREAKS WOULD TORMENT AND
HARASS SOMEONE for 4 YEARS, AND WHEN THE ONE IN THE RIGHT (ME
--HEEEEELLLLLOOOOO?????) RIGHTFULLY COMPLAINS YOU TRY TO YANK MY
ACCOUNTS FOR RIGHTFULLY DOING SO?????
THIS _____IS_____CONTROL_____FREAK AND DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR---
GET OUT, SHUT UP AND FUCK OFF---
YOU-----------ARE---------WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!" -Ed Wollmann
(above 5 all on same day)
"What is your work punk? What sort of freak spends all day everyday
trying to censor people they disagree with??
I will file a suit with the California state attorney if my posting
rights are interfered with in ANY WAY.
Attention SDSU THESE ******ARE***** THE ABUSERS--*****I**** AM NOT THE
PROBLEM I AM THE SOLUTION--AND I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL PROPER ACTION IS
TAKEN---GOT THAT???????" -Ed Wollmann
"WHY DO YOUPOST IN METApsych BITCH!????"-Ed Wollmann
"I created a group, I wrote a charter for that group--abusers LIVE TO
ABUSE IT-I will respond in kind with complaints FOR that abuse as LONG
AS IT TAKES."-Ed Wollmann
"I am not opposed to off topic issues, this is natural and occurs often,
so I cannot chastise anyone for that" - Ed Wollmann, HypocriteandNetKook.
1999
"It is not that big of a deal, this is just a newsgroup
it is not a battle for king of the Earth or something! Take a break!" -Ed
Wollmann
How's that?
That Wollmann Asshole
>
>
> "jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
>
>> In article <3C3D07A2...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> >He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off
>> >as one of the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on
>> >this NG.
>>
>> Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
>> others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though
>> no confirmed knowledge exists to start with, before they reject an
>> absurd premise, is somehow "erudite"? Really?
>
> No. His erudition came through in his allusions and the writers he
> quoted.
Quoting other people's work is about all Edmo knows. Every once in a while
he'll even attribute it.
>> If he said that the surface of the sun was made of dry ice, and what
>> we see is light bouncing off the "smoke", would I have to know what
>> "facts" were involved before I broke out laughing? Really? I would
>> have to personally visit the surface of the sun? That's effectively
>> what he demands.
>>
>> Absurd!
>
> True enough. At this point I don't really know what he's said.
Then you and Ed have something in common!
> He
> used the term "astrology." Some people think that means heavenly
> bodies quasi-physically influencing how we feel and act. Those who
> know more about its history understand that it is a metaphorical
> system, a kind of allegory of existence. The same thing goes for
> alchemy -- the caricature of hermits trying to turn lead into gold has
> almost no relation to what that practice really was. But I don't know
> what this character thinks it is.
>
Edmo just told you that it's a science that could be tested, no! he said
it couldn't be tested, ummm wait, it's an art, no wait, it's an
art/science, OOPS!, hold on a second, he'll test it and get back to you,
UHHHHHH, he's designed experiments! Yeppers! That's the answer!
The point of that Edmo-inspired paragraph is that Edmo is a nutcase and
will contradict himself any number of times. Just enjoy the kookiness.
That Wollmann Asshole
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>
>> In article <3C3D07A2...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> >He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off
>> >as one of the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on
>> >this NG.
>
>> Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
>> others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though no confirmed
>> knowledge exists to start with,
>
> You believe, you are telling us of you and your world view, and very
> little of astrology. You don't know history do you, this knowledge of
> astrology--the links I gave, is an academic accounting of astrological
> history.
Nice job showing your incoherence! Who can parse that? Please consider
taking remedial English.
> Astrology is the father of almost every science.
Rilly? Let's run a few off!
Biology? Nah!
Nuclear physics? Nope.
Chemistry? No.
Another stupid statement, Edmo.
That Wollmann Asshole
> Ophisios wrote:
>
>> Spamster wrote:
>
>> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> > > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
>> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> > > > > Astrology is an art/science
>
>> > > > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and
>> > > > gullible is an art/science too.
>
>> > > No, you are talking about religion now.
>
>> > No, we were talking about a kook, you to be exact.
>
>> He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off
>> as one of the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this
>> NG.
>
> Thank you, these cyberthugs follow me everywhere I go, and try to
> demean and denigrate all that I say.
>
Eddieeeee! Your own words hang you!
Here's some more examples!
"I am unlike anyone you have ever met and ever will- don't pigeon hole me
you son of a bitch!"
"You can walk into any store and buy aliens too-what planet you from
imbecile?"
"They even attack established song writers like Einstein etc."
"You haven't posted anything but bullshit-the difference between me and
you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl (I was a hoodlum biker for
years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck out of you, talk like this-AND
STILL post something of value, counsel persons and meditate on nature, and
do a piece of art to find center. You see I've been there done that-I
CHOOSE to do this now. Why not take a shot at the intellectual side once
in a while-we've the seen the ignoramus part?"
"Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch."
"I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree."
"Get out-if you think I'll ever let go of your ass you've got another
thing coming."
"You could very well be a rich bitch I have pissed off, there have been a
few you know."
"I do do laundry. I have to because there will be no females in this house
for the next 20 years."
"Don't confuse me with the facts. I have groupies."
"I won long ago. They just don't realize its over."
"Losing what you fucking idiot? You've lost it."
"I am Just analytically correct- you are ugly as fuck inside and out."
"You have to be a criminal first before it would be "criminal
tresspassing" otherwise it is just tresspassing."
"Its YOUR VENGANCE SEEKING OVERGROWN 5 year old that is wrecking this
group you spoiled abusive arrogant brat. All because he has to go out and
get revenge for your inability to handle your own life, and keep your legs
closed."
"I answered in non-pretyped form. TWICE."
"You are off topic, complaints sent. No one needs you trying to control
usenet."
"All mail is public folks, it gets posted from server to server."
"I have never been incorrect. Nothing will be retracted."
"I make no apologies for my prowess either with astrology, art, logic or
attractiveness to and for the oppositie sex."
"I have even received letters from confused readers who have purchased my
text and were baffled..."
"True psychological awareness dictates, that a "kooky, goofy, or unaware
or impotent person," is typically ignored. Only those whose power is
evident, either to be negative or positive, are threatening to others. And
because I have carefully developed and documented the mechanics of
positive and negative energy and the ways to recognize and implement them,
this threatens those whose power comes from this lack of knowledge by
those whom they seek to control. I have no interest in controlling anyone.
The usenet newsgroup called alt.usenet.kooks was created solely to
ridicule, denigrate and defame legitimate businesses and persons, by
groups who are bigoted against them on the Internet, and hence control
those whose ideas are feared or interfere with a direction of behavior or
policy. There are approximately 80,000 newsgroups and they attempt to use
the vote of approximately 40 bigoted (and it appears poorly educated)
individuals as a indictment of the irresponsibility or "craziness" of
those they target. They then list these results with search engines in the
hope that this "defaming advertisement" will dissuade people from trusting
their services on the Internet (which many persons new to the Internet
find scary to begin with). Because the average person is not Internet
savvy, this is an effective tactic to censor and defame those who become
their target, and cause damages to their businesses. I have dealt in Real
Estate, counseled for years, possessed a secret clearance from the US
government, along with many other career endeavors where I was regarded as
professional and effective. I have been labeled a "kook" by these
individuals simply because I refuted the abusers ridicule and
fallaciousness through logical argument, and had some of their Internet
accounts canceled for their abuse. Any attempt by persons such as me to
expose this to others and/or ISPs is swiftly censored and a major
"ostracizing" and never-ending spin to malign, commences. The key seems to
be if you are independent as I am don't cower when they begin to threaten
that you will win kook awards if you don't stop "such and such." These are
control freaks, plain and simple. The problem is their mental level only
intimidates those who may be profoundly insecure. One vote from the 40 or
so bigots was done in 98, and just recently in 99, and the same 40 bigots
out of 40,000 to 80,000 newsgroups did the voting!:-) This continued
attempt to defame even though they have been exposed as a farce, and those
who continue to act as if it has any validity, is one of the best examples
of Woodenheaded thinking - "assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs." (Tuchman,
1984, p. 7), I have ever seen. They call themselves Skepticult, Usenet
Bullies and other silly names."
"There's not even time for masturbation!"
"ARCTURUS- ... This star is the center of many solar systems "
"Orion is a star."
"Tau Ceti is in the constellation Taurus"
"I also assert there was life on Mars at one time too, and that when the
destruction of the planet that is now the asteroid belt occurred, that the
earth and Mars shifted orbits which allowed life to be altered here and
wiped out there, I also assert that there is probably intelligent life on
at least half of the planets in our galaxy, I also predicted that there
would be the Northridge quake in LA. I also predicted that George Bush Jr.
would bring us right into conflict, I also predict that there will be a
major paradigm shift between 2012-15, I also predict that the human race
will be wiped out on the next return of Nemesis, I also predicted half of
the natural disasters in the last 5 years and where they would
occur.....Yes, and so?"
"Now whos the fucking bully asshole?"
"I cannot enjoy usenet isn't there SOMEONE who can control this crap!?"
"Yes, I am wise, and its wisdom born from my superior brain! Yes, I pay no
price and look how much I gain! If I have to, I can do ANYTHING!! I am
strong, I AM invincible! I am WOOOOOLLLLLLMMMMAAANNNNNNNN!!! HEAR------
MEE-----ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you have any astrology to discuss?"
"I got news for you, admins, and whoever else you think is stupid enough
to not call abuse and harassment abuse and harassment---it will NEVER be
over until it stops or I MAKE it stop--comprende?"
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!"
"She hired someone to do it."
"And I have already debunked the idea that I wear underware on any part of
my body."
"First day on campus! AAAAAiiiiiiieeeeee! 30,000 femininas! So little
time!!!!"
"Pam is a slime for supporting anonym"
"Have you ever had sex or even a woman Ricky?"
"She is the shitball."
"We will go on forever, you and I, and you sir, will lose."
"She gave me nothing-I on the other hand gave her a nice pair of tweety
bird panties, a nice silk get up, and a camping trip to look at the real
constellation of Scorpio."
"Tell your mom to take you to the roller coaster at the beach, she is
getting old and will regret it."
"I like feminine women"
"now I will pursue you for life"
That Wollmann Asshole
> Ophisios wrote:
>>
>> el...@no.spam wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>,
>> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
>> > >open.
>> >
>> > Open doesn't mean you have to believe what every kook on the
>> > block is preaching, Edie. It would be really stupid to buy
>> > what a fraud like you is selling no matter how "open" one's mind is.
>>
>> Equally stupid to assume something is fraudulent because you've heard
>> it is. Like people who won't give abstract expressionism a chance
>> because those artists are "just frauds."
>
> True, the Universe is full of exciting new things to learn and
> explore--always, this is the sign of intelligence.
>
KEWL! You get to learn how Bernadette Brady treats plagiarizers!
Be prepared for a new experience, thief!
That Wollmann Asshole
> Ophisios wrote:
>>
>> "jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3C3D09F6...@aol.com>, Ophisios
>> > <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >The larger
>> > >point -- about dogmatism -- is the defomation professionelle of the
>> > >scientist: the tendency to transform a tiny bit of results into a
>> > >vast metaphysical order.
>> >
>> > This reminds me of what a politician (a successful one, too) once
>> > said to me:
>> > If you don't like it when somebody is proving you wrong,
>> > call them dogmatic. Then they have to prove what you should
>> > have
>> > had to prove.
>> > --
>>
>> For every analogy, there's a disanalogy, and we can't know in advance
>> which is relevant. I didn't just call you dogmatic, I cited an
>> example of dogmatism. But we've probably said all there is to say on
>> that head. Even so, I must say I've rarely if ever had so hard a time
>> getting someone to admit that he might benefit from reading a book or
>> two on a topic about which he claims to care.
>
> The point is, that the intelligent person is interested in learning for
> learning's sake, not to prove or disprove one or another thing as
> "better" than another.
Really? I suppose you'll have no problem with taking cyanide instead of
aspirin the next time you get a headache. After all, the end result is the
same, you won't have the headache anymore.
> Better is a subjective value judgment, there is
> no one truth, except that the truth is the composition of all truths.
> If there is a God--or ALL THAT IS as I prefer to call it, that
> underlies and motivates the physical world as we know it, with its vast
> amounts of space and 15 billion light years of time, would this
> identities' perspective be one of petty rights and wrongs? I find this
> hard to believe if so. I would rather think, that IT was in an ecstatic
> exploration of the infiniteness of its existence, and that beyond that
> it would allow all to be a part of its experience.
That was incoherent, dumbfuck. Any chance of trying that babble in
English?
That Wollmann Asshole
>
>
> Shari Boone wrote:
>
>> "Edmond Wollmann" wrote:
>>
>> > Malthus wrote:
>> >
>> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> >>> Beacon wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com>
>> >>>> wrote in message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>> >
>> >>>>> Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
>> >>>>> science if it don't work".
>> >
>> >>>> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>> >
>> >>>> Beacon
>> >
>> >>> Astrology is an art/science
>> >>> I have listed all of the typical questions with answers here;
>> >>> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
>> >
>> >> According to this link
>> >> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=113449
>> >> New Year astrological predictions (in the UK at least) are full of
>> >> the effects of a newly discovered minor planet, KX76. It's really
>> >> just an over-large asteroid, discovered last May.
>> >
>> >> Quote:
>> >> If you are a Taurus, then
>> >> you should be feeling its
>> >> intense "influence". People
>> >> who are Aries will get a
>> >> jolt of "momentum" thanks
>> >> to it. And if you are a
>> >> Scorpio, then you can
>> >> thank your lucky stars, for
>> >> it is about to take you
>> >> through one of the most
>> >> "delightful eras" you are
>> >> ever likely to encounter.
>> >> In fact, just about every
>> >> star sign, according to the
>> >> New Year predictions of
>> >> astrologers, will feel the effects of KX76...
>> >
>> >> Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
>> >
>> >> If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the
>> >> effects of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be due
>> >> to the known planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the thing
>> >> for themselves.
>> >
>> >> Hint: It's been there for aeons.
>> >
>> >> Dunderheads.
>> >
>> >> Christchurch, New Zealand.
>> >
>> >> Astrology: the failure to understand that the planets stopped being
>> >> gods once mortals could predict their movements.
>> >
>> > Newspaper and SunSign astrology is compared to real astrology, like
>> > "Ask Ann Landers" is to real clinical psychology.
>>
>> Wollmann's astrology is like having your throat strangled while
>> someone ass-fucks you and cleans out your wallet.
>
> Sounds exciting! Do you think he'd offer a reach-around?
>
>
I'd have to say that his hands would be busy at other tasks. HTH!
Spamster
Ophisios wrote:
> Spamster wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Astrology is an art/science
> > >
> > > > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > > > an art/science too.
> > >
> > > No, you are talking about religion now.
> >
> > No, we were talking about a kook, you to be exact.
>
> He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
> the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
Yeah right.
That Wollmann Asshole
> Jim Phillips wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <3C3C6B...@astroconsulting.com>,
>> > > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>> > > >Beacon wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist <j...@research.att.com>
>> > > >> wrote in message news:Gpn5y...@research.att.com...
>> >
>> > > >> > Anyone else wanna shot? I just keep telling him "it ain't
>> > > >> > science if it don't work".
>> >
>> > > >> cant find the message. Crosspost it to sci.skeptic please
>> >
>> > > >> Beacon
>> >
>> > > >Astrology is an art/science
>> >
>> > > Astrology is no science.
>> >
>> > Comparing anything you have no knowledge of--is not possible.
>>
>> Sure, but that has nothing to do with this situation. The
>> basic
>> claims of astrology are known to anyone who's ever heard of it. The
>> fact that astrology is completely incapable of doing what it claims to
>> be able to do is easy to understand.
>>
>> snip
>
> Astrology doesn't claim anything, people do.
Are you really this stupid, Edmo? Who the fuck uses astrology? Bears?
Frogs? Fish? People? Oh yeah, people do!
> Astrology is an
> art/science.
>
But you claimed it wasn't a science! Can't you keep your lies straight,
Eddieee?
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>You believe, you are telling us of you and your world view, and very
>little of astrology.
I believe very little. I conclude what has evidence available
available. Do not presume to tell me how I think.
>You don't know history do you, this knowledge of
>astrology--the links I gave, is an academic accounting of astrological
>history. Astrology is the father of almost every science.
Your statement has little relevance. Indeed, staring at the night sky,
the position of the sun, etc, has lead to a great deal of understanding.
You could, were you attempting to conform to modern use, say
"astronomical" history, and thereby communicate usefully.
Why you have chosen otherwise is an interesting question, but
not one that I suspect I'll find any clear elucidation of.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>If you want nothing to do with it I guess that's your lookout, but if
>you're interested in the topic (how science works) I should think you'd want to
>take a look. But whatever.
In other words, you imply that I'm not interested in how science works
unless I want to do it your way.
Narcissist!
I do quite well doing it the old-fashioned way.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>Even so, I must say I've
>rarely if ever had so hard a time getting someone to admit that he might benefit
>from reading a book or two on a topic about which he claims to care.
Therein demonstrating a rather offensive insinuation that because I
haven't read the books YOU have, I haven't read "a book or two"
on a subject that I practice.
Slick, yes. Substantive? Not in the least.
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>The point is, that the intelligent person is interested in learning for
>learning's sake, not to prove or disprove one or another thing as
>"better" than another.
I wondered when you'd slide into claiming that either there is
no truth or that truth has no value.
I contend that learning something which is false (without learning
that it is false) is not learning, it is, rather, the opposite.
That Wollmann Asshole
> These posts that you see with my name forged on them with an AOL
> address, are not me, but [redacted], he has been stalking me for 6
> years now. He will try to make me look stupid and trick you into
> thinking I wopuld write such non-sense.
No, you write even more ridiculous 'non-sense'. It's tough to follow up
your kookiness. But since you insist on dragging in a non-combatant, I
have no choice but to put together another request for MEGA-ABUNDANCE.
> He is a sick rich person.
That's gotta go in the archive!
> He even bought Wollmann.com!!
But you claimed I was forging that domain and that it was yours! Were you
lying when you claimed that, Eddieeee?
> You can read about this abuse here:
>
> http://www.smbtech.com/ed
>
An excellent site!
Here's a few more!
http://www.shore.net/~a/bin/wollmann/quote.cgi
www.petitmorte.net/phoenix/wollmann.html
http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
http://www.shore.net/~a/wollmann/spank.html
Gotta love them!
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>That is one of our big problems. Few astrologers have designed
>experiements etc. as I have and so the problenm of operationalizing
>astrology accurately has yet to be acomplished.
So do it. Build yourself some evidence.
>There have been studies
>with significance though, and because I believe the interpretive part of
>astrology is an art, that part must be removed from any experimental
>design.
Bzzt. Sorry. If astrology has predictive value as far as human
behavior, success, etc, (I'm not talking about knowing when the
sun rises, that has obvious value) then you have to show that.
Hiding behind "art" simply won't wash.
>Just like other sciences this came through observation, however in
>astrology we have about 5000 years of observation.
And zero.zerozerozero confirmation. Humans are wired to
detect patterns, and often do so even when no pattern
exists. Your statement merely confirms this.
>I have covered a lot of these historical questions in my "Arguments
>Against the Astrologers paper.
>http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm
Is this a referred publication in a scientific journal?
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>
> > In article <3C3D07A2...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
> > >the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
>
> > Let me get this straight. You think that his request that
> > others learn knowledge of what he proposes, even though
> > no confirmed knowledge exists to start with,
>
> You believe
Yes, we all believe that you're a fool. Next question.
That Wollmann Asshole
> Jim Phillips wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> > jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist wrote:
>
>> > > In article <PM0003972...@BertieBoot.unknown.dom>,
>> > > Malthus <k...@caverock.net.nz> wrote:
>> > > >Here's the difference between Astrology and Science:
>
>> > > >If Astrology were a science, astrologers would have noticed the
>> > > >effects of KX76 years ago, realised those effects could not be
>> > > >due to the known planets, and by careful analysis, pinpointed the
>> > > >thing for themselves.
>
>> > > Yup.
>
> Irrelevant, astrology is not a science.
Then why did you call it an 'art/science', you fucking idiot?
>> Never mind the fact that Uranus, Neptune & Pluto didn't find
>> their
>> way into astrological horoscopes until after they'd been discovered by
>> astronomers. Imagine that...
>
> Irrelevant,
No, it's very relevant. You don't have an answer for it and your
plagiarized screed won't change that.
> if you read my article on the astrology of the Maya, you
> will see the 9 levels of heaven etc., and in the ancient orient the
> same. It is a psychological tool, not a mechanistic cog.
Oh! So depending on the argument, you change your definition of astrology?
You just claimed it's not a science but an 'art/science'. It looks like
you just make up definitions that you don't explain and expect that to go
by unchallenged.
> The Horoscope is a Mandala. It is divided into polarities of masculine
> and feminine, as well as the four temperament types found in the
> Kiersey temperament sorter and Jung's four psychological functions in
> psychology. These are related to the four Cardinal points, the elements
> and the persona creation through belief, emotion, and thought.
Let's do the math! 2 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 128. That's one confused mandala!
> According to Carl Jung
Jung was a nutcase that fucked his clients and saw nothing wrong with
that. No wonder you cite him, dipshit.
[screed snipped]
That Wollmann Asshole
> Jim Phillips wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>,
>> > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
>> > >open.
>>
>> It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your
>> brains fall out.
>
> It's also good to have sayings that don't date you and signal your
> mental state.
>
Got any bad McCartney lyrics to quote, dumbfuck?
How about some 'old white male' words like 'conundrum'?
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Ophisios wrote:
> >
> > el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3C3CE8...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > > Edmond Wollmann <Edm...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
> > > >open.
> > >
> > > Open doesn't mean you have to believe what every kook on the
> > > block is preaching, Edie. It would be really stupid to buy
> > > what a fraud like you is selling no matter how "open" one's
> > > mind is.
> >
> > Equally stupid to assume something is fraudulent because you've heard it
> > is. Like people who won't give abstract expressionism a chance because
> > those artists are "just frauds."
>
> True, the Universe is full of
Kooks like you.
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Ophisios wrote:
> >
> > "jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3C3D09F6...@aol.com>, Ophisios <beli...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >The larger
> > > >point -- about dogmatism -- is the defomation professionelle of the scientist:
> > > >the tendency to transform a tiny bit of results into a vast metaphysical order.
> > >
> > > This reminds me of what a politician (a successful one, too) once
> > > said to me:
> > > If you don't like it when somebody is proving you wrong,
> > > call them dogmatic. Then they have to prove what you should have
> > > had to prove.
> > > --
> >
> > For every analogy, there's a disanalogy, and we can't know in advance which is
> > relevant. I didn't just call you dogmatic, I cited an example of dogmatism. But
> > we've probably said all there is to say on that head. Even so, I must say I've
> > rarely if ever had so hard a time getting someone to admit that he might benefit
> > from reading a book or two on a topic about which he claims to care.
>
> The point is, that the intelligent person
You're not qualified to comment on intelligence, dope.
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Ophisios wrote:
>
> > Spamster wrote:
>
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > > Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
> > > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > > > > Astrology is an art/science
>
> > > > > If you put that way, conning money out of the weakminded and gullible is
> > > > > an art/science too.
>
> > > > No, you are talking about religion now.
>
> > > No, we were talking about a kook, you to be exact.
>
> > He hasn't said anything kooky that I've seen. So far, he's come off as one of
> > the more thoughtful, open-minded, and erudite voices on this NG.
>
> Thank you, these cyberthugs
Spank you every time you kookfart.