WORKS EVERY TIME ASTROLOGY CHALLENGE
pete stapleton
CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
astrological influences found in the sky.
I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE. Read the delineation posted which
describes the distinct personality patterns ALWAYS present with
the natives of each group. This will give you enough information
about the person to test for yourself whether astrology works every
time.
These wheel of life delineations have been tested since the early
1970's - be assured they will quickly show you astrology is alive
and well and up in the sky and introduce you to an astrology that
works every time and all you have to do is look for yourself.
Using these new dates and the Wheel Of Life delineation segments of
Hub, Rim and Spoke allow you to immediately start doing your own
astrology that works every time and prove it's existence to
yourself.
I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON SCI(JOKE).SKEPTIC (CLONES). SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
THIS NEW (YET THE OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY AS REPRESENTED BY THE
WHEEL OF LIFE PROVES ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND UP IN THE SKY.
IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
PETE STAPLETON
Bob Casanova
>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>
>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>astrological influences found in the sky.
>
>I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
>largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
>order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
>all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
>this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
>is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
>
>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
>birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
>of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE.
Fine. Use 23 December, and describe the person. Good luck.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to casanova @ crosslink.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
twi...@worldnet.att.net
pete stapleton wrote:
>
> CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
I did, it didn't.
I also posted a date from someone else, and you've never responded.
Wonder why?
Scott McClare
In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
>birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
>of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE. Read the delineation posted which
>describes the distinct personality patterns ALWAYS present with
>the natives of each group.
My birthday is December 6. Please tell me all about myself.
While you're at it, tell my why the "Spoke" personality fits me better
than the supposed "Hub" personality.
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP3, GGBC42, KoX, <*>, MOoRMC, "Randi groupie"
Scott's Chunk of the Web <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/>
Criminal Cult <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/Scientology/>
"Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau" - William Blake
Lana Mountford
pete stapleton wrote:
<< snip >>
> I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
> INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
> DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
> AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
Several of us have done just that and have shown
conclusively that it doesn't work.
> NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
> BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON SCI(JOKE).SKEPTIC (CLONES). SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
> TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG?
I repeat -- several of us have posted responses
showing that this simply doesn't work.
<< snip more asinine insults >>
> SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
> SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
> TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
> THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
Uh -- don't you mean sci.skeptic? Here are the
headers of the message to which I'm responding:
Path:
paperboy.engeast.baynetworks.com!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!philabs!blanket.mitre.org!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: WORKS EVERY TIME ASTROLOGY CHALLENGE
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:25:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-8.redding.c-zone.net
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Feb 24 4:29:59 PM CST 1997
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Perhaps you posted to the wrong group?
--
* Lana Mountford | *
* (speaking only for herself) | Marriage made me what I am today: *
* lmoun...@baynetworks.com | Happily divorced! *
* lsmn...@ix.netcom.com | *
pete stapleton
nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:25:18 GMT, in sci.skeptic, pet...@c-zone.net
>(pete stapleton) wrote:
>>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>>
>>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>>astrological influences found in the sky.
>>
>>I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
>>largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
>>order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
>>all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
>>this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
>>is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
>>
>>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
>>birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
>>of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE.
>Fine. Use 23 December, and describe the person. Good luck.
>
>Bob C.
Pete Stapleton comments: Bob C., why?
The challenge is for you to prove my astrology that works
every time wrong. astronomers have produced volumes
of studies which show astrology doesn't work. It is
my statement that these anti astro studies have been
performed by astronomers using their flat earth zodiac
that doesn't measure any astrological influence what
so ever.
So prove astrology wrong using the correct dates.
Pete
pete stapleton
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>pete stapleton wrote:
>>
>> CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>I did, it didn't.
>I also posted a date from someone else, and you've never responded.
>Wonder why?
Pete Stapleton comments: twitch, read the following challenge and
maybe you will begin to understand the meaning of the term "challenge"
CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
astrological influences found in the sky.
I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE. Read the delineation posted which
describes the distinct personality patterns ALWAYS present with
the natives of each group. This will give you enough information
about the person to test for yourself whether astrology works every
time.
These wheel of life delineations have been tested since the early
1970's - be assured they will quickly show you astrology is alive
and well and up in the sky and introduce you to an astrology that
works every time and all you have to do is look for yourself.
Using these new dates and the Wheel Of Life delineation segments of
Hub, Rim and Spoke allow you to immediately start doing your own
astrology that works every time and prove it's existence to
yourself.
I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY. SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
THIS NEW (YET THE OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY AS REPRESENTED BY THE
WHEEL OF LIFE PROVES ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND UP IN THE SKY.
IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
PETE STAPLETON
pete stapleton
Lana Mountford <lmoun...@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>pete stapleton wrote:
> << snip >>
>> I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
>> INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
>> DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
>> AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
>Several of us have done just that and have shown
>conclusively that it doesn't work.
>> NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
>> BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON SCI(JOKE).SKEPTIC (CLONES). SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
>> TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG?
>I repeat -- several of us have posted responses
>showing that this simply doesn't work.
> << snip more asinine insults >>
>> SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
>> SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
>> TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
>> THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
>Uh -- don't you mean sci.skeptic? Here are the
>headers of the message to which I'm responding:
>Path:
>paperboy.engeast.baynetworks.com!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!philabs!blanket.mitre.org!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton)
>Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Subject: WORKS EVERY TIME ASTROLOGY CHALLENGE
>Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:25:18 GMT
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 55
>Message-ID: <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-8.redding.c-zone.net
>X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Feb 24 4:29:59 PM CST 1997
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Perhaps you posted to the wrong group?
>--
>* Lana Mountford | *
>* (speaking only for herself) | Marriage made me what I am today: *
>* lmoun...@baynetworks.com | Happily divorced! *
>* lsmn...@ix.netcom.com | *
Pete Stapleton comments: how wonderful, you have proven
my astrology that works every time wrong. I wonder if you
could post the proof - or at least the methodology.
So far any proof of my astrology that works every time not
working every time has not been publically posted.
So why not give it a try - let us all in on these wonderful
scientific studies which prove the astrology that works
every time wrong.
Pete
pete stapleton
samc...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Scott McClare) wrote:
>In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
>pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
>>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
>>birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
>>of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE. Read the delineation posted which
>>describes the distinct personality patterns ALWAYS present with
>>the natives of each group.
>My birthday is December 6. Please tell me all about myself.
>While you're at it, tell my why the "Spoke" personality fits me better
>than the supposed "Hub" personality.
>Scott
Pete Stapleton comments: scott, try hard - read the text.
See if you can get the meaning of the words. They have
to do with the great "minds?" of sci (joke) skeptic (anti clones)
proving something wrong. astronomers have been publishing
study after study proving what they call astrology wrong.
I have just posted the true dates of the astrological influences.
Now prove them wrong.
Here is the text of the challenge, try to read it all the way through.
I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY. SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
THIS NEW (YET THE OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY AS REPRESENTED BY THE
WHEEL OF LIFE PROVES ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND UP IN THE SKY.
IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
PETE STAPLETON
Lana Mountford
pete stapleton wrote:
<< snip my response to Pete's assertion that
no one in sci.skeptic had answered his challenge
to "prove" his "new astrology" wrong -- if you're
interested in the previous 'discussion,' look it
up in DejaNews >>
> Pete Stapleton comments: how wonderful, you have proven
> my astrology that works every time wrong. I wonder if you
> could post the proof - or at least the methodology.
All it takes is a single instance of the failure of
your astrology to predict an individual's "distinct
personality patterns" to invalidate your claim that
it "works every time." This article marks the **third**
time I've posted this text -- perhaps I should email it
as well, since Pete seems reluctant to read any
followups to his articles:
----- begin included article -----
Subject: Re: PROOF ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL - SPOKE
From: Lana Mountford <lmoun...@baynetworks.com>
Date: 1997/02/18
Message-Id: <330A52...@baynetworks.com>
References: <5ebj4n$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>
CC: lmoun...@baynetworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Bay Networks
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
OK, so let's just see how close this is . . .
pete stapleton wrote:
>
> THE NEW ASTROLOGY (c) Pete Stapleton << snip >>
> MERCURY (Gemini JUN 15 - JUL 16)
OK -- I used to be a Cancer, but according to
Pete, I'm now a Gemini. Let's see what that
means . . .
<< snip >>
> (NOTE: you must use the NEW dates shown above for
> this NEW ASTROLOGY to work.)
We shall see . . .
> Spokes then are a combination of the astrological
> effects similar to the influences of the planets
> JUPITER, NEPTUNE, MERCURY and PLUTO.
>
> Using the analogy of our wheel, the spokes
> run back and forth from the rim to the hub.
> Hence, those born when the Sun was in any one of
> these four astrological influences are the
> "gadabouts" of our society.
>
> They are constantly changing course and location,
> often times upon the spur of the moment.
Hmmmm ... I've been in the same career for 27 years,
in the same house for 10 yrs (and the same geographic
area for 17 years), drove the same car for 11 yrs
(finally bought a new one just last year). I don't
think anyone I know would classify me as a
"gadabout," not by any stretch of the imagination.
So this part doesn't fit at all.
> It
> might be said that Spoke people live to a much
> greater degree within the world of "alpha
> rhythms" which are the brain wave patterns which
> have little to do with the practical side of the
> mind.
Funny -- the one adjective most people use to
describe me (besides intelligent and beautiful)
is "practical." ("Rational" is another one.)
> Because of this sensitivity of this more psychic
> side of the brain, Spokes are receptive to the
> distractions of the environment to a much greater
> degree than Rims or Hubs. They seem to "feel"
> when things will turn out right and rely upon
> their sixth sense or hunches to guide them
> through life.
Hmmmm ... don't know about this. I tend to rely
more on skill and knowledge than on "hunches" or
blind luck.
> This psychic receptiveness is one of the major
> reasons Spoke natives make the best psychics,
> psychologists and hypnotists. Also, because of
> this environmental sensitivity, the time needed
> for the acceptance of a new idea by this group
> can be a few moments or hours, but seldom more
> than a few days.
Depends on the "new idea." If I think it might
be a useful one, I'll adopt it in a heartbeat.
If I perceive the idea to have no practical use,
I'll more than likely ignore it until such
evidence as to its utility is presented.
> The Spokes, as a group, have little long-term
> malice within them. It is true that they throw
> outrageous temper tantrums at the drop of hat (I
> can't believe I wrote that), but these outbursts
> have only momentary intensity. Terrible things
> may be said during the course of one of these
> outbursts, yet an hour later the Spoke has
> usually forgotten the entire incident. A need to
> verbalize the emotions seems to be the basic
> cause of this type of behavior.
Nope, not even close. I'm a "hoarder" when it
comes to anger and emotion. I'm the type that
will forgive, but NEVER forget, and I'm prone
to biding my time, plotting revenge. I don't
ever recall having exhibited anything that might
even remotely resemble a tantrum (you're welcome
to ask my mother). I get quiet when I get angry,
quite the opposite of the behavior described in
the above paragraph.
> What a Hub or Rim might think of a emotional
> fireworks is merely a Spoke defense mechanism or
> a means of getting rid of feelings to which they
> have difficulty relating. Because of this, the
> Spoke natives get a lot of attention during their
> school years. They will speak out about
> everything they feel.
Not sure what the above is saying. I got a lot of
attention in school because I made the highest
grades in the class. I was also known as a very
quiet conscientious student, not a discipline
problem in the least -- a bit of a "teacher's
pet." I rarely spoke up unless specifically
called upon. Even today, I tend to be rather
reserved.
> Spokes have the ability to involve themselves in
> a new game or project with surprising ease. They
> are always looking for what is next in life.
This is probably true, and one of the reasons I
chose the career I did (it affords me the
opportunity to work in a variety of areas within
a business enterprise).
> They love the interchange of ideas and opinions
> and consequently are the most academically
> oriented of our society. Spokes are constantly
> bouncing between the learning experience
> process and its practical application. This is
> why a great number of Spoke people are
> professionally oriented or employed in the
> helping professions.
This also fits pretty well.
> Spokes tend to approach sexuality with the
> same mental attitude they apply to the rest of
> life. To them sex is a form of communication.
> They use it to get closer on a mental level.
> They have the normal sex drives of all humans but
> are more flirtatious and shy when intimately
> involved.
Don't understand the above statement -- "flirtatious
and shy" seem to be contradictory. And I'd be
willing to bet that MOST people (not just Spokes)
view sex as a form of communication.
> They may experiment with new partners
> because they are afraid of missing something, but
> generally do not stray far from home.
Hmmmmm ... nope, not really. And again, not sure
what this is really saying "... do not stray far
from home" -- Does this mean Spokes won't travel
to meet someone? or that they only get involved
with those who are like them?
> Social attitudes are particularly important to
> the Spokes. They are attracted to the upper class
> values and institutions of our world. They have
> a tendency to be class - conscious and somewhat
> snobbish in their approach to making friends and
> seeking employment. Not only must the job pay
> well, but the social level of their fellow
> workers and the professional level of their jobs
> are also relevant.
Only partly true. I like "nice things" and am
happy to finally be able to afford them, primarily
because of the quality and value they represent.
However, the "social level" of my co-workers is of
no importance to me whatsoever. There are
attributes that are FAR more important to me than
social standing (loyalty, shared values, etc.).
What are "upper class values" and how are they
different from other values?
> Spokes are the mental people of our society. They
> are intro-spective, calculating and analytical.
Probably true to a certain extent.
> You will find them constantly examining their own
> and others' emotions and motives. They pay a
> great deal of attention to the moral codes and
> class distinctions of our world so they will
> always know the "proper" thing to do.
I don't think so ... no. Class distinctions
just don't matter much to me. As far as always
knowing the "proper" thing to do, no, I don't.
I have to guess just like a lot of folks.
> However,
> they only pay attention to these rules when
> they are out in public. What takes place behind
> closed doors is another story.
>
> Usually these people are nervous and high-strung
> by nature. They are always ready for a party,
> and after two drinks, ready for anything.
Couldn't be more wrong. I'm rather serene, rarely
feeling more than a slight case of butterflies
(before a performance, for example). Even when
under tremendous pressure at work, I never blow up.
Furthermore, my idea of a good evening is a quiet
dinner at home with a few friends. I'm just the
opposite of the proverbial "party animal," which
is the implication of the above paragraph.
So, how'd we do? The majority of the characteristics
described for Spokes do not fit me at all; in fact,
the exact opposite seems to hold true more often
than not. A few seemed partially correct, while
only a couple seemed to fit with no qualification.
<< snip >>
> If you want an astrology that works every time
> this is the way to start.
What do you mean by "works"? If you mean "accurately
describes the characteristics of an individual," then
I've just shown that it *doesn't* work every time.
So, thanks, but I'll pass. This just about matches the
accuracy of the two readings I had from the two
different AFA-certified astrologers some years
back -- two wildly different readings, based on the
same exact input, neither of which was more than 20%
accurate concerning past occurrences, and regarding
specific predictions, 0% accurate.
<< snip sig >>
----- end included article -----
> So far any proof of my astrology that works every time not
> working every time has not been publically posted.
Yes, it has, by several people. Here are the headers
of the two previous times I posted the above comments:
Subject: Re: PROOF ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL - SPOKE
From: Lana Mountford <lmoun...@baynetworks.com>
Date: 1997/02/18
Message-Id: <330A52...@baynetworks.com>
References: <5ebj4n$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>
CC: lmoun...@baynetworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Bay Networks
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: Re: PROVE IT WRONG - SPOKE
From: Lana Mountford <lmoun...@baynetworks.com>
Date: 1997/02/25
Message-Id: <331365...@baynetworks.com>
References: <5evdgh$c...@news9.noc.netcom.net>
CC: lmoun...@baynetworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Bay Networks
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> So why not give it a try - let us all in on these wonderful
> scientific studies which prove the astrology that works
> every time wrong.
I know of no "scientific studies" that prove it wrong. It's
your assertion that it works every time. Therefore, it is up
to you to provide evidence of that assertion. Your challenge
to us was to attempt to apply your "new astrology" to people
we know and "prove" that it works every time. Here's part of
your challenge:
> I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
> largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
> order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
> all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
> this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
> is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
> Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
> birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
> birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
> of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE. Read the delineation posted which
> describes the distinct personality patterns ALWAYS present with
> the natives of each group. This will give you enough information
> about the person to test for yourself whether astrology works every
> time.
Note your use of the words "every time" and "ALWAYS."
I used myself as a "guinea pig" and tried to see if the
characteristics you described for "spokes" "fit" my own
perception of myself. I also printed out the description
and gave it to a co-worker and asked for an honest
assessment of your listed characteristics vs her perception
of me. I gave her no indication of my own feelings about
fit or lack thereof, as I gave it to her before I had
done my self-assessment. The details of that
self-assessment have now been posted publicly three times.
My co-worker's assessment was that the description wasn't
even remotely close (in fact, as we were discussing the
results, she disputed some of the items that I counted as
"hits").
The sad fact is that the "distinct personality patterns" are
**NOT** "always present with natives of each group." How
can you possibly assert that your "new astrology" works in
every case? All it takes is *** ONE *** case where it
doesn't work to disprove your assertion. At least three of
us have posted articles detailing how the characteristics
listed for our alleged "patterns" don't fit us. Therefore,
your claim of "works every time" is invalid. It may work
"some of the time," but you cannot claim 100% accuracy.
Bob Casanova
In article <5f2eek$a...@news9.noc.netcom.net> in sci.skeptic, pete stapleton
<pet...@c-zone.net> wrote...
>
>nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:25:18 GMT, in sci.skeptic, pet...@c-zone.net
>>(pete stapleton) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>>>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>>> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>>>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>>>
>>>I have also posted about the WHEEL OF LIFE - which shows the three
>>>largest divisions of astrological influences found in the sky. In
>>>order to test this NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME -
>>>all you need to know is a person's month and date of birth. With
>>>this information, you will be able to find out whether the person
>>>is a HUB, RIM OR SPOKE within the Wheel Of Life.
>>>
>>>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>>>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
>>>birth date (month and date) within the three segments of the wheel
>>>of life, HUB, RIM OR SPOKE.
>
>>
>>Bob C.
>
>Pete Stapleton comments: Bob C., why?
>
>The challenge is for you to prove my astrology that works
>every time wrong. astronomers have produced volumes
>of studies which show astrology doesn't work. It is
>my statement that these anti astro studies have been
>performed by astronomers using their flat earth zodiac
>that doesn't measure any astrological influence what
>so ever.
>
>So prove astrology wrong using the correct dates.
I made no claim. You made the claim, you provide the evidence, using the data
provided. Good luck.
>
>Pete
>
>
--
Eric Hocking
pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote in article
<5f2eek$a...@news9.noc.netcom.net>...
> nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
<<<Big snip on repost of challenge>>>
> >Fine. Use 23 December, and describe the person. Good luck.
> >
> >Bob C.
>
> Pete Stapleton comments: Bob C., why?
>
> The challenge is for you to prove my astrology that works
> every time wrong.
If Astrology is a theory (perhaps you'd propose it as a Law?), merely
disproving it once nullifies the theory. I haven't studied for some time
so can't regurgitate verbatim the definition, but this is the basic gist.
> astronomers have produced volumes
> of studies which show astrology doesn't work.
Doesn't that show you something? Shouldn't that be enough proof?
> It is
> my statement that these anti astro studies have been
> performed by astronomers using their flat earth zodiac
> that doesn't measure any astrological influence what
> so ever.
>
> So prove astrology wrong using the correct dates.
>
> Pete
>
OK. I've been following the responses you've received so far (27/2/97
Australia). I also graded the responses against a breakdown of your three
statements, which I have posted already.
Results are:
HUB: 1 response, score 4/27 = 15%
RIM: 1 response, score - 7/27 = 26%
SPOKE:3 responses, score 6, 8,& 5 / 30 = (20%, 27%, 17%) 21%avg
Like one of the first responders, Daniel, I approached this with a broad
mind and not a great deal of seriousness (you did sat "have fun").
Your above post tho', takes on a fairly belligerent tone, and CHALLENGES us
to disprove a theory.
While the onus is on YOU to prove your assertation, I think that the
results above are sufficient to show that the "New" astrology does not
"work every time".
Aggregate score on 5 responses is 30 agreements out of 114 statements -
that's 26%.
Being generous, you'd have at least a 50/50 chance from a yes/no response
to get agreement - you barely scraped in at 50% of 50%!!
So while it's been fun, sod this for a game of soldiers - ASTROLOGY DOESN'T
WORK.
(apologies for shouting).
Eric Hocking
MnPSharkey
pet...@c-zone.net (pete- Mr. 3rd Person -stapleton)
>I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
>INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
>DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
>AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
OK. I'll take you up on your puny challenge.
Since you wouldn't take me up on my lottery challenge.
I'll describe my personality - you can help by asking whatever
questions you feel are pertinant.
Then - you tell me what my birthdate is - to within +/-3 days.
That's about a 2% chance of *guessing* correctly -
but surely a 98% chance or better for -drumroll, please -......
INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME.
Or you could go for the *big* shot - guess (woops I mean
determine by INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME)
birthdate *and* birthyear.
That would be on the order of 4/100 of a %.
If the geological longitude and latitude matter - as it seems
to for some of you astrology clowns and liars - it was
in Montevideo, Minnesota, USA.
NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY. SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
THIS NEW (YET THE OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY AS REPRESENTED BY THE
WHEEL OF LIFE PROVES ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND UP IN THE SKY.
IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
PETE STAPLETON
OK. I'll take you up on your puny challenge.
Since you wouldn't take me up on my lottery challenge.
I'll describe my personality - you can help by asking whatever
questions you feel are pertinant.
Then - you tell me what my birthdate is - to within +/-3 days.
That's about a 2% chance of *guessing* correctly -
but surely a 98% chance or better for -drumroll, please -......
INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME.
Or you could go for the *big* shot - guess (woops I mean
determine by INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME)
birthdate *and* birthyear.
That would be on the order of 4/100 of a %.
If the geological longitude and latitude matter - as it seems
to for some of you astrology clowns and liars - it was
in Montevideo, Minnesota, USA.
How much are *you* willing to put into escrow for this wager,
Petie, boy??
Mike Sharkey
MnPSh...@aol.com
twi...@worldnet.att.net
pete stapleton wrote:
> <snip>
> The challenge is for you to prove my astrology that works
> every time wrong.
ROTFLMAO!
I'm a giant grey monster about to eat the world, Pete!
Prove me wrong!
>astronomers have produced volumes
> of studies which show astrology doesn't work.<snip>
And, good work it is! But, all it shows is that particular astologer didn't
know what he was talking about. It didn't prove a negative!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
pete stapleton wrote:
>
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> >pete stapleton wrote:
> >>
> >> CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>
>
> >I also posted a date from someone else, and you've never responded.
>
> >Wonder why?
>
> Pete Stapleton comments: twitch, read the following challenge and
> maybe you will begin to understand the meaning of the term "challenge"
Oh, that is simple. You mean that you want us to disprove something which you
know doesn't work. And, when any evidence is forthcoming, like a lot of it has
with regard to your challenge, you'll ignore it.
I also posted a challenge to you since you are making such a claim, I gave you
the info but you failed to provide any evidence.
Because you don't have any?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
pete stapleton wrote:
> <snip>
> So far any proof of my astrology that works every time not
> working every time has not been publically posted.
>
ah, Pete, Lana did that. All she has to do is show that the Astrology that
works every time didn't work once. She did that, so she proved that your
claims are bogus.
> So why not give it a try - let us all in on these wonderful
> scientific studies which prove the astrology that works
> every time wrong.
>
But you already have them! You earlier today posted, " astronomers have produced
volumes of studies which show astrology doesn't work."
Don't read your own articles, Pete? I don't blame you!
Scott McClare
In article <5f2epa$a...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
>Pete Stapleton comments: scott, try hard - read the text.
Do it yourself. You made the outlandish claim. Do your own homework.
What would happen if I wrote a paper saying the following:
"Dickens had _Oliver Twist_ ghostwritten. My challenge to Prof. Smith
is to prove me wrong."
I'd get laughed out of the course.
The onus is on *me* to prove Dickens had a ghostwriter. The onus is
on *you* to prove that the position of the sun in the sky at my birth
determines my disposition.
*You* go and interview my friends and put them in your little
three-column list.
Put up or shut up. I strongly advise the latter.
[remainder of drivel snipped]
John Ritson
In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
zone.net> writes
>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>
>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>astrological influences found in the sky.
You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
and KIWI-FRUIT.
IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
PROVE ME WRONG
(I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
John
I H Spedding
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:42:48 GMT, pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton)
wrote:
>I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
>INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
>DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
>AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
>
>NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
>BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY. SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
>TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
>KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
>
>THIS NEW (YET THE OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY AS REPRESENTED BY THE
>WHEEL OF LIFE PROVES ASTROLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND UP IN THE SKY.
>
>IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
>WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
>
>SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
>SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
>TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
>THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
>PETE STAPLETON
I'm posting from sci.skeptic and, like the rest of the skeptics, I'm
waitig to see a single scrap of evidence to support your claims emerge
from the smokescreen of rhetoric that you're blowing.
Ian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian H Spedding (sped...@mognet.u-net.com)
There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in
UFO's. But on the grounds of probability it should be kept as an
explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than
routinely weak evidence to support it.
Richard Dawkins: Richard Dimbleby Lecture (12 November 1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Salyers
pete stapleton (pet...@c-zone.net) wrote:
> CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
I just started reading this group, and y'know what? It's a *lot*
more palatable once you've killfiled Earl Curley and this guy.
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung Made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO --from _Richard v3.0_
http://www.dimensional.com/~tsalyers
Bo Parker
John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> said::
> In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
> zone.net> writes
> >CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
> >
> >For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
> >ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
> > to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
> >dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
> >astrological influences found in the sky.
>
> You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
> and KIWI-FRUIT.
>
> IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
>
> PROVE ME WRONG
> (I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
> where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
John, John, John...
<tsk, tsk, tsk>
You're just blowing smoke. All self-respecting
charla^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologers know that it's not HUB, SPOKE and RIM *or*
PEACH, APPLE and KIWI-FRUIT.
It's ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, and FIREARMS!
PROVE IT WRONG!
;^)
-Bo Parker
fbpa...@hiwaay.net
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Bob Casanova
>In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
>zone.net> writes
>>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>>
>>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>>astrological influences found in the sky.
>
>You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
>and KIWI-FRUIT.
No, no, *no*, NO, *NO*!!! It's OAK, MAPLE and DOGWOOD!!! *Any* fool
should be able to see this!!! *This* is what WORKS EVERY TIME!
(If you doubt, come around next fall.)
>
>IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
>
>PROVE ME WRONG
>(I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
>where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
>John
(Note followups, if any)
Bob Casanova
On 28 Feb 1997 15:58:10 GMT, in sci.skeptic, fbpa...@xhiwaay.net (Bo
Parker) wrote:
>
>John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> said::
>
>> In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
>> zone.net> writes
>> >CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>> >
>> >For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>> >ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>> > to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>> >dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>> >astrological influences found in the sky.
>>
>> You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
>> and KIWI-FRUIT.
>>
>> IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
>>
>> PROVE ME WRONG
>> (I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
>> where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
>
>
>John, John, John...
>
><tsk, tsk, tsk>
>
>You're just blowing smoke. All self-respecting
>charla^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologers know that it's not HUB, SPOKE and RIM *or*
>PEACH, APPLE and KIWI-FRUIT.
>
>It's ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, and FIREARMS!
[Begin chorus...] "These are a few of my faaaavorite things."
;-)
>
>PROVE IT WRONG!
>
>;^)
>
>
>-Bo Parker
>fbpa...@hiwaay.net
>
>"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
> them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."
> -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
(Note followups, if any)
Larry Lade
"Momma told me to watch out for weirdos. Then I discovered Usenet."
Okay, okay, Pete ol' boy, you do not seem to understand a simple
concept of knowledge: when you make a claim and you expect other
people to believe it, YOU, yes, YOU, bear the burden of proof. We
don't have to prove you WRONG, YOU have to prove that you are RIGHT.
You have offered not a shred of proof, absolutely none, that your
theories are correct, other than the fact that you insist that they
are correct.
Incidentally, we HAVE humored your request. You have made the claim
that your "astrology works >>every<< time" (emphasis added).
Therefore, if even ONE exception can be found to this NEW (YET STILL
BOGUS) astrology, your theory has been disproven. Yes Pete, just one.
No Pete, I am not "blowing smoke." This it what is know as L O G I C.
This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, I know, but your
public library is certain to have some easy to grasp books on this
subject. Read more about it.
Anyway, many of us DID INDEED read all of your posts, and make an
honest effort to understand what they were saying. Then, at your
request, we have proven them wrong. Nearly everyone who has followed
up your nonsense post has clearly identified AT LEAST ONE exception to
your theory; again, as stated above, this is all it takes to disprove
your claim.
Of course, when these people do go through point-by-point and
carefully explain where this system has failed, you launch into this
rant on how their subjective rating of themselves is not good enough.
Are you suggesting that there is an objective method of evaluating
personality, and, if so, why are your three archtypes described in
subjective terms?
I understand that if you read this, you will totally overlook each of
the points I have made. At this point, it is becoming very clear that
you are not listening. Your measured response to any argument is,
"THERE YOU GO AGAIN YOU ANTI ASTRO CLONES BLOWING SMOKE AGAIN THAT
JUST GOES TO PROVE MY POINT" or something of the sort. Anti astro
clones?
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:25:18 GMT, pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton)
wrote:
>Then, in order to start right out reading the electro-magnetic
>birth imprint of anyone you know - you only need to look up their
To deviate from the subject a little, I'm rather curious: where did
you get this bit about "electro-magnetic birth imprint." That sounds
like some kind of scientific term. This seems to imply that you have
some kind of measureable evidence, which we "skeptic clones," in our
brainwashed view, would certainly have a much easier time handling.
Either that, or you just put it in there because it sounds cool and
thereby could increase your credibility with the gullible.
>These wheel of life delineations have been tested since the early
>1970's - be assured they will quickly show you astrology is alive
Ooh! Again you claim you have proof! Elighten us with these tests!
>I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
>INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
>DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
>AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
Uh... we did look beyond our mindset, did test it for ourselves, and
we did disprove it. If we hadn't "LOOKED BEYOND OUR BRAIN WASHING" I
guess we would have ignored you altogether, wouldn't we have? I must
say, you are making me regret having LOOKED BEYOND MY OWN BRAIN
WASHING since I gave you the benifit of the doubt just in case you had
really stumbled onto something solid here. Of course, as with all
astrology, you have no evidence for these claims.
You really don't understand the concept of skepticism at all, do you?
It is, by definition, challenging belief and demanding proof before
anything is accepted. I could see if you went after Christians or
some other group that believes things out of blind faith, but
skeptics? Really, your arguments are just bad.
>NOTE THE CORRECT ASTROLOGICAL DATES AND WHEEL DELINEATIONS HAVE
>BEEN POSTED SEVERAL TIMES ON SCI(JOKE).SKEPTIC (CLONES). SO WHY HAVEN'T YOU
>TRIED TO PROVE IT WRONG? OR IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER YOU DON'T
>KNOW HOW TO THINK ON YOUR OWN?
We tried and succeeded at proving it wrong. Last time I checked, I
could have sworn I did my own thinking; at least that's what I thought
I was doing when I am stricken with insomnia because I'm too busy
thinking, trying to figure it out for myself. Or maybe I am possessed
by a little red man with horns, and he does all my thinking for me.
Or perhaps it's the groupmind of the hive which controls my thought.
Yes, perhaps I have half insect. Yes, that would be it.
>IT ALSO PROVES ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED - BRAIN
>WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWERS WHO CAN'T "LOOK" FOR THEMSELVES."
Um, gee Petey, did you ever think to take a look at yourself? Did it
occur to you that YOU might be the brainwashed mindless smoke blower
who doesn't know how to test something for himself? You sure are
acting the part. To a tee, I might add.
Okay Pete, my challenge to YOU is:
1) Prove that your NEW (YET OLDEST) INSTANT ASTROLOGY works.
2) Prove that I am BRAIN WASHED MINDLESS SMOKE BLOWER ANTI ASTRO
CLONE.
3) Prove that PEOPLE WHO RIGHT WHOLE PARAGRAPHS IN CAPITAL LETTERS
WHEN TRYING TO GET THEIR POINT ACROSS ARE NOT DOING SO BECAUSE THEY
ARE INSECURE IN THEIR ARGUMENT AND SO THEY BEEF UP THEIR POINT BY
ADDING OVEREMPHASIS, MUCH IN THE SAME WAY THAT BULLIES SHOUT TO
INTIMIDATE PEOPLE INTO LISTENING TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO SMALL
MINDED TO FIND ANY OTHER METHOD.
I look forward to your response. :)
--
Larry Lade - la...@btigate.com
PGP Public Key: finger la...@prairie.nodak.edu
PGP Key fingerprint: 51 4B E6 DF CE B3 E8 2F B5 0C 18 F9 D3 81 2F 5D
"Ninety percent of everything is crap." --Sturgeon's Law
William Barwell
In article <8c2xWFAp...@jritson.demon.co.uk>,
John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
>zone.net> writes
>>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>>
>>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>>astrological influences found in the sky.
>
>You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
>and KIWI-FRUIT.
>
>IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
>
>PROVE ME WRONG
>(I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
>where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
>John
No, you are wrong. It is Moe, Larry and Curley.
Rev Ivan Stang of the Church of the SubGenius has stated all
people fit in one of the three celestial categories. Prove him wrong.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>In article <8c2xWFAp...@jritson.demon.co.uk>,
>John Ritson <jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <5et4p7$k...@news9.noc.netcom.net>, pete stapleton <petejan@c-
>>zone.net> writes
>>>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
>>>
>>>For some time now I have been posting about the NEW INSTANT
>>>ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I have taken the trouble
>>> to post NEW INSTANT ASTROLOGY - INTRO, which give the correct
>>>dates the Sun, in it's apparent motion - enters each of the twelve
>>>astrological influences found in the sky.
>>
>>You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
>>and KIWI-FRUIT.
>>
>>IT WORKS EVERY TIME.
>>
>>PROVE ME WRONG
>>(I intend to apply the pete stapleton rules of simply ignoring examples
>>where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
>>John
>
>
>No, you are wrong. It is Moe, Larry and Curley.<snip>
Sorry, but you are all wrong, it is Pete, Earl, and Ron!
Oh, you just said that!
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
The wicked sometimes rest.
Alexandre Dumas, pere
sigmund lofstedt
Material below de-garbaged:
> >>>CHALLENGE TO ANTI ASTRO CLONES
> >>You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
> >>PROVE ME WRONG..
> >>where it is wrong, and re-posting the original nonsense)
> >No, you are wrong. It is Moe, Larry and Curley.<snip>
>
> Sorry, but you are all wrong, it is Pete, Earl, and Ron!
Me too
A ~~~ A
* *
( (o o) )
-----------oOO------OOo----------------------------------------------------
~
Miss PIGGY
Jim Rogers
pete stapleton wrote:
...
> Pete Stapleton comments: twitch, read the following challenge and
> maybe you will begin to understand the meaning of the term "challenge"
>
> I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI ASTRO CLONE TO DISPROVE THIS NEW (YET OLDEST)
> INSTANT ASTROLOGY THAT WORKS EVERY TIME. I KNOW IT WILL BE
> DIFFICULT SINCE IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK BEYOND YOUR BRAIN WASHING
> AND TEST SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
Pete, this has been done here by several people, myself included. If you
understood the first thing about logic, you would know that a single
counterexample disproves the claim that something "works every time."
Therefore, your new (yet oldest) instant astrology that works every time
has been disproven.
...
> SO BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR THEM SELVES BY PERFORMING
> SUCH A SIMPLE TEST THAT THE ANTI ASTRO CLONES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
> TRUTH - ONLY IN TURNING ON THEIR NATURAL MORPHINE FACTORIES BY
> THEIR CONSTANT POSTING OF ANTI ASTRO TIRADES HERE ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
In another post you denied that we're able to judge this for ourselves,
because our impressions about ourselves are so obviously (to your
wheel-of-cheese astrology) faulty. So what you are demanding here is
logically inconsistent.
Go away, you annoying piece of navel lint.
Jim
Scott McClare
In article <3318628c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
<twi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>You have it all wrong, it is not HUB, SPOKE and RIM. it is PEACH, APPLE
>>>and KIWI-FRUIT.
>>No, you are wrong. It is Moe, Larry and Curley.<snip>
>Sorry, but you are all wrong, it is Pete, Earl, and Ron!
You're al wrong. It's Alex Lifeson, Geddy Lee, and Neil Peart.
Rush just received the Order of Canada, Canada's highest honours last
week. This proves it.
Prove me wrong.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Forwarded to alt.astrology to see what wonderful articles
one of their leading lights posts elsewhere.
He has been shown wrong by several folks, consistently
gotten upset everytime someone takes his challenge and
disproves it, and we have finally managed to teach him that
the point that he insists on calling zero aries and insists
that astronomers call it that, isn't even in aries.
No wonder his astrology doesn't work!
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
ske...@sprintmail.com
OK BONEHEAD, PROVE IT RIGHT !!!!!
Since a negative can never be proven, no matter how absurd, one can
never be expected to do so.
Dissagree, do you ?
Prove to us all then that Rodney Dangerfield is not GOD.
If you can't, I guess you will have to worship at his feet.
ps.....don't forget to tithe.
William R. James
Edward Keyes
In article <3321dc12...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> Since a negative can never be proven, no matter how absurd, one can
> never be expected to do so.
>
> Dissagree, do you ?
>
> Prove to us all then that Rodney Dangerfield is not GOD.
(a) Assume, on the contrary, that Rodney Dangerfield is God
(b) God is totally good, and therefore cannot knowingly lie
(c) God is omniscient, and therefore cannot believe a falsehood
(d) Therefore God cannot state a falsehood
(e) God gets respect from many people
(f) Rodney Dangerfield claims to get no respect
(g) Therefore Rodney Dangerfield is not God, since if he were, he
would be stating a falsehood, which is a contradiction
Q.E.D.
+------------ Edward Keyes, mist...@1stresource.com -------------+
|............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
|.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
+- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+
twi...@worldnet.att.net
mist...@1stresource.com (Edward Keyes) wrote:
>In article <3321dc12...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
>> Since a negative can never be proven, no matter how absurd, one can
>> never be expected to do so.
>>
>> Dissagree, do you ?
>>
>> Prove to us all then that Rodney Dangerfield is not GOD.
>
>(a) Assume, on the contrary, that Rodney Dangerfield is God
Actually, it is Roseanne, but to humor you, we will assume
this.
>(b) God is totally good, and therefore cannot knowingly lie
We don't know that God is totally good. We only have his
side of the story. After all, he is the one responsible for
the Bible.
I want to hear the other side before I make a judgement.
>(c) God is omniscient, and therefore cannot believe a falsehood
God is omniscient, but that merely means total knowledge. Or
wisdom. But, we have only his word about this.
Additionally, we know nothing about his capacity for
self-deception.
>(d) Therefore God cannot state a falsehood
Total knowlege, or even total wisdom is not the same as
total honesty.
>(e) God gets respect from many people
True. Or at least they claim he does. However, some rather
rank folks claim to love and respect him, so we need to take
this claim with suspicion.
>(f) Rodney Dangerfield claims to get no respect
But, we don't know about God's capabilities for
self-deception nor really about his honesty. He is believed
to be honest, if you listen to his representatives.
But some of his representatives, Jim Bakker for example,
have not demonstrated this about themselves.
>(g) Therefore Rodney Dangerfield is not God, since if he were, he
> would be stating a falsehood, which is a contradiction
I don't know. I kind of like the concept of a God who gets
no respect.
>
>Q.E.D.
>
>+------------ Edward Keyes, mist...@1stresource.com -------------+
>|............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
>|.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
>+- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
-> -> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote: -> ->
> mist...@1stresource.com (Edward Keyes) wrote:
> >In article <3321dc12...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> >ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >> Since a negative can never be proven, no matter how absurd, one can
> >> never be expected to do so.
> >> Dissagree, do you ?
I agree with that.
> >> Prove to us all then that Rodney Dangerfield is not GOD.
Well, it would seem so, since God get's respect, and Rodney just
"can't get any respect." However, it's not final proof. So,
you are right, since there is no *everytime* evidence here.
> >(a) Assume, on the contrary, that Rodney Dangerfield is God
-> Actually, it is Roseanne, but to humor you, we will assume
-> this.
> >(b) God is totally good, and therefore cannot knowingly lie
-> We don't know that God is totally good. We only have his
-> side of the story. <snip>
*Alleged* side of the story, and it may be a "she."
<snip>
-> Additionally, we know nothing about his capacity for
-> self-deception.
Good GOD, MAN! I mean, GREAT GUNS! Would GOD deceive himself?
Didn't you see George Burns' movie when he played "GOD"?
> >(d) Therefore God cannot state a falsehood
-> Total knowlege, or even total wisdom is not the same as
-> total honesty.
Ah, yes, very astute. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Who said that? I saw it on an old STAR TREK.
> >(e) God gets respect from many people
Perhaps the *image* of GOD gets that respect.
-> True. Or at least they claim he does. However, some rather
-> rank folks claim to love and respect him, so we need to take
-> this claim with suspicion.
Yes, I agree.
> >(f) Rodney Dangerfield claims to get no respect
-> But, we don't know about God's capabilities for
-> self-deception nor really about his honesty. He is believed
-> to be honest, if you listen to his representatives.
-> But some of his representatives, Jim Bakker for example,
-> have not demonstrated this about themselves.
> >(g) Therefore Rodney Dangerfield is not God, since if he were, he
> > would be stating a falsehood, which is a contradiction
-> I don't know. I kind of like the concept of a God who gets
-> no respect.
> >Q.E.D.
Yes, you could prove, with this, that no-one can prove something
like astrology does not exist. Certainly, if one wishes to obtain
proof, that burden is upon the person who makes the allegations
that astrology does exist to prove it -- *IF* anyone wishes to
do such proving.
> >+------------ Edward Keyes, mist...@1stresource.com -------------+
> >|............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
> >|.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
> >+- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+
-> I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
-> The wicked sometimes rest.
-> Alexandre Dumas, pere
--
h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>-> -> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote: -> ->
>
>> mist...@1stresource.com (Edward Keyes) wrote:
>
>> >In article <3321dc12...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>> >ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>> >(b) God is totally good, and therefore cannot knowingly lie
>
>-> We don't know that God is totally good. We only have his
>-> side of the story. <snip>
>
>*Alleged* side of the story,
"It must be remembered that we only have heard one side of
the case. God has written all the books" (Samuel Butler)
>and it may be a "she."
>
True. A she-god would explain a number of things about the
Universe.
><snip>
>
>-> Additionally, we know nothing about his capacity for
>-> self-deception.
>
>Good GOD, MAN! I mean, GREAT GUNS! Would GOD deceive himself?
>Didn't you see George Burns' movie when he played "GOD"?
>
Nope. I saw God playing George Burns playing God!
The self-deception of a god is a terrible thing!
>> >(d) Therefore God cannot state a falsehood
>
>-> Total knowlege, or even total wisdom is not the same as
>-> total honesty.
>
>Ah, yes, very astute. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>Who said that? I saw it on an old STAR TREK.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely" (Lord Acton in a letter to a bishop)
>
>> >(e) God gets respect from many people
>
>Perhaps the *image* of GOD gets that respect.
>
Nah, then we'd be violating God's commandment against
worshipping 'graven idols'. Of course, since money isn't
graven (i.e., carved from wood or stone), I can keep up my
respect for it!
><snip>
>Yes, you could prove, with this, that no-one can prove something
>like astrology does not exist. Certainly, if one wishes to obtain
>proof, that burden is upon the person who makes the allegations
>that astrology does exist to prove it -- *IF* anyone wishes to
>do such proving.
Nah, no one here wishes to prove astrology exists. IF
someone did, we'd have nothing to snarl about with each
other.
I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >-> -> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote: -> ->
> >> mist...@1stresource.com (Edward Keyes) wrote:
> >
> >> >In article <3321dc12...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> >> >ske...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
> >> >(b) God is totally good, and therefore cannot knowingly lie
> >
> >-> We don't know that God is totally good. We only have his
> >-> side of the story. <snip>
> >*Alleged* side of the story,
>
> "It must be remembered that we only have heard one side of
> the case. God has written all the books" (Samuel Butler)
> >and it may be a "she."
> True. A she-god would explain a number of things about the
> Universe.
Like unpredictability, for instance?
> ><snip>
> >
> >-> Additionally, we know nothing about his capacity for
> >-> self-deception.
> >
> >Good GOD, MAN! I mean, GREAT GUNS! Would GOD deceive himself?
> >Didn't you see George Burns' movie when he played "GOD"?
> Nope. I saw God playing George Burns playing God!
Hmmm, yes a god that is in all (non-personal) was inside George
Burns, who was playing a personal god.
> The self-deception of a god is a terrible thing!
>
> >> >(d) Therefore God cannot state a falsehood
> >
> >-> Total knowlege, or even total wisdom is not the same as
> >-> total honesty.
>
> >Ah, yes, very astute. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> >Who said that? I saw it on an old STAR TREK.
>
> "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely" (Lord Acton in a letter to a bishop)
Oh, I have a theory that power cancels itself out at a certain point,
before too much damage can be done, that's it's a metaphysical law.
> >> >(e) God gets respect from many people
> >Perhaps the *image* of GOD gets that respect.
> Nah, then we'd be violating God's commandment against
> worshipping 'graven idols'. Of course, since money isn't
> graven (i.e., carved from wood or stone), I can keep up my
> respect for it!
Well, respect for money is different than worship of it.
> ><snip>
> >Yes, you could prove, with this, that no-one can prove something
> >like astrology does not exist. Certainly, if one wishes to obtain
> >proof, that burden is upon the person who makes the allegations
> >that astrology does exist to prove it <snip>
> >do such proving.
> Nah, no one here wishes to prove astrology exists. IF
> someone did, we'd have nothing to snarl about with each
> other.
Well, I don't believe it can be *proven* in the true orthodox
scientific sense. I certainly wouldn't attempt to do it.
To begin, in ascertaining the significance of the statistical evidence
that has been presented, to have effective dialogue, both the
skeptics and astrologers would have to agree upon what would
be expected.
I was involved in a dialogue with a number of
skeptics and astrologers in alt.astrology, and no-one could
come to an agreement as to what constituted "astrology," or what an
"astrologer" would be. I proposed the same certification as Edmond
Wollmann has.
No solution was reached as to what type of test could be conducted.
The proposed test from the skeptics was according to the same
criteria of a former test with astrology, based upon some psychological
test, and, of course, since there was no divulgence on USENET as to
the nature of the test, it could not be agreed upon.
My proposal had to do with a duplication of the statistical
study of Carl Jung, in his work, *SYNCHRONICITY* but no-one
paid any attention to that.
I can understand that, because people can choose to marry based
upon a "sign," but one could refine that test by including only
those subjects who, when questioned, indicated they had no interest or
knowledge of astrology.