Neptune -`
Anonymous
>
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> joyce small <jms...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >Okay, thanks. If you have time for another horoscope, how about one for a
>> >male born August 19, 1974 in Washington, DC at 6:24 A.M. EDT?
>> +-----<11>23Tau00[1]---<10>24Ari22[12]---<9>23Pis18[11]-----+
>> | Sat 20Gem02 | Ald 15Tau00 | | |
>> | | | | |
>> | | | | |
>> | | | | |
>> <12>20Gem38[2]-|-----------------------------|-[10]20Aqu44<8>
>> | Esp 7Can18 | Astrolog 5.41F chart | |
>> | Ven 10Can59 | male -24.4382249 | |
>> | | Mon Aug 19 1974 6:24am | Jup 20Aqu40r |
>> | | Washington, DC | Des 0Aqu32 |
>> <1>19Can27[3]--| DT -05:00, 77:02W 38:54N |--[9]19Cap27<7>
>> | Asc 0Leo32 | UT: 10:24, Sid.T: 3:05 | |
>> | Sun 1Leo38 | Terrestrial Houses | |
>> | Mer 3Leo42 | Caelestial / Geocentric | |
>> | Mar 19Leo57 | Julian Day = 2442278.9333 | Lil 16Cap32 |
>> <2>20Leo44[4]--|-----------------------------|--[8]20Sag38<6>
>> | For 23Leo47 | Ura 0Lib13 | | |
>> | Moo 24Leo52 | | | |
>> | Plu 10Vir45 | | Nod 22Sco19r | |
>> | | | Nep 12Sco24 | Ver 19Sag28 |
>> +-------[5]23Vir18<3>---[6]24Lib22<4>---[7]23Sco00<5>-------+
>>
>> HOROSCOPE RULERSHIPS
>> Sun : [ 3rd] [-]
>> Moon : [ 4th] [R]
>> Mercury : [ 3rd] [R]
>> Venus : [ 2nd] [R]
>> Mars : [ 3rd] [-]
>> Jupiter : [ 9th] [R]
>> Saturn : [ 1st] [d]
>> Uranus : [ 5th] [F]
>> Neptune : [ 6th] [F]
>> Pluto : [ 4th] [-]
>> Node : [ 6th] [e]
>> Lilith : [ 8th] [R]
>
>Okay, thanks, but again, I would appreciate a translation of the above into the
>individual's strengths, weaknesses, skills, deficiencies, etc.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Please accept my tendency towards brevity, in doing
judicial horoscopes--as rulerships of these planets
are pronounced in this chart. Moon ruling in fourth
house in danger of outside influence in this soul's
experience, as to synthesize or integrate influence
sometimes, possibly often, without sufficient cause,
such as to read these very words then be influenced
by them. In this sense, one can only hope that this
advise proves prudent, even a warning for this soul.
Yes...the house-cusps in this chart are synchronous;
four planets-transiting at birth, namely 1) Jupiter
transits to reign in the ninth house of fortune; 2)
Saturn souljourn transits benign to the first house
of-self; 3) Mars transits to Mercury's ruling house,
and 4) head of the dragon transits to exaltation in
the sixth house...as if to "chasten" fallen Neptune!
In the sixth house of servants, wisdom is fallen to
intellect; Mercury doesn't mind, as Mercury IS mind.
Beware inclination towards "mental" rationalization.
Jupiter is the chrono-logical trigger in this chart,
transiting the cusp maybe just seconds before birth.
Jupiter rules-supreme for his charity, a charitable
soul, but expectedly disciplined, yet undisciplined?
These are the common traits of the Saturnian psyche,
to revel in discipline, so much so as to abandon it
from time/to/time--as to change at a moment-in-time;
time, Saturn's reign. This person commands his time.
change, change, time, time, time...time, time, time.
Time, I say time again! Timing is under this soul's
ultimate obsession, Saturn loves Venus in time. See?
That's why Saturn debilitates under Mars at morning,
this inferior, the temporal aspect-of-timing to wit.
Moon with Pluton-Hades, fourth house. I emplore you
to consider the true key-signature of Pluto therein:
Cancer - Ionian (Venus & Pluto)
5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Bb C D Eb F G Ab
Aqu Ari Gem Can Vir Sco Sag
Sat Moo Mer Ven Sun Mar Jup
R R R R
Pluton is the center of activity, the center of the
world, the geo-center of the Earth. Pluto-Ionian is
very pleased with the Moon, and her muse Klio, with
all ancestors. The center is Verily(!) Pluton-Hades.
This is the marriage of the natural minor, the Moon,
with the natural major, Pluto...number one with ten,
Moon with Pluto See? (This is a major study-request).
Fortune in the fourth house is notoriously for Moon,
predictably upset, past droning "in-on" the present.
Again, please forgive my tendency towards brevity...
I see two soul-journs: Saturn, what Venus? Spirit is
with Venus ruling second house of riches. Spirit and
riches are one, yet the same? No problem with mammon
in the spiritual sense, Saturnian materialism is not
a "given"; land-water, already intact, the vertex in
her seventh house is horoscope--land/recovery at end.
Tail of the dragon ruling in the eighth house, as of
the horoscope is adjudicated ThereFrom, also Mercury.
I revere the "sextile-centricity" between Pluton and
Venus, & Neptune, I'm typing especially hard at this
point in my Adjudication: indicative of tension from
my point of seeing; I don't like this malefic aspect,
I think because Pluton is centered between them, see?
Oblivion is white and very frightening to every soul!
I don't like the Sun on the Ascendant beforehand, as
this is oft-indicative of a very powerful ruler-ship,
even subordinance of principalities and powers. See?
I must stop for now.
God is my Judge
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPNSjzZljD7YrHM/nEQL/MgCg6iM40DQTaQJhNPwhGr/FKTJWFF8AnRaH
SJRqsrmhEXaplvJve00r7MEW
=edJb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Min's Astro-Charts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1cce989bec5a72ef...@dizum.com
Rain
Anonymous <nob...@noisebox.remailer.org> writes
>Tail of the dragon ruling in the eighth house, as of
>the horoscope is adjudicated ThereFrom, also Mercury.
>I revere the "sextile-centricity" between Pluton and
>Venus, & Neptune, I'm typing especially hard at this
>point in my Adjudication: indicative of tension from
>my point of seeing; I don't like this malefic aspect,
>I think because Pluton is centered between them, see?
>Oblivion is white and very frightening to every soul!
>
>I don't like the Sun on the Ascendant beforehand, as
>this is oft-indicative of a very powerful ruler-ship,
>even subordinance of principalities and powers. See?
>
>I must stop for now.
>
>God is my Judge
OK OK, give me a reading I was born at 8.30am on the 14th December 1966
in Birmingham.
Remember that in the Midlands everyone says that Riothamus is just
sleeping and that one day he will awake.
--
The Stars
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Anonymous
>born at 8.30am on the 14th December 1966 in Birmingham.
>
A graphic image of your natal chart is temporarily posted
on line for your perusal (it'll be deleted in a few days):
Mars rules in first house of horoscope, fortune with
Neptune in second house; Mercury rules in third house
with Sun on ascendant; Moon rules in fourth house with
part of spirit, and Venus therein; Saturn sixth house;
tail of the dragon seventh house, head of the dragon
eighth house; Jupiter with vertex in eleventh house;
Uranus twelfth house, Pluto benign therein; Venus,
Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto closing
benefic, Mercury nearest at 1.2 AU receding malefic:
+-----<11>06Sco04[3]---<10>06Lib01[2]---<9>03Vir45[1]-------+
| Mer 9Sco23 | Nep 28Lib39 | | |
| Sun 27Sco34 | For 2Sco45 | | |
| Asc 0Sag12 | | | Ura 29Leo59 |
| | | Mar 11Vir06 | Plu 26Leo18 |
<12>04Sag03[4]-|-----------------------------|-[12]01Leo39<8>
| Ven 6Sag13 | Astrolog 5.41F chart | |
| Moo 25Sag01 | RC -24.3294141 | |
| Esp 27Sag38 | Wed Dec 14 1966 8:30am | Ver 15Can40 |
| | Birmingham, UK | Jup 9Can18r |
<1>01Cap54[5]--| ST +00:00, 1:50W 52:30N |-[11]01Can54<7>
| | UT: 8:30, Sid.T: 13:52 | |
| | Terrestrial Houses | |
| | Caelestial / Geocentric | |
| | Julian Day = 2439473.8542 | |
<2>01Aqu39[6]--|-----------------------------|-[10]04Gem03<6>
| Sat 28Aqu52 | Lil 4Pis22 | | |
| | | | |
| | | | Des 0Gem12 |
| | | Nod 21Ari22r | Ald 15Tau00 |
+-------[7]03Pis45<3>---[8]06Ari01<4>---[9]06Tau04<5>-------+
Body Caelest Lat. r Hs RUL. Veloc.
Mars : 11Vir06 + 1:54' - 1 [R] +0.515
Midheaven : 6Lib01 + 0:00' 2 | ______
Neptune : 28Lib39 + 1:42' - 2 [-] +0.034
Mercury : 9Sco23 + 1:18' - 3 [R] +1.396
Sun : 27Sco34 - 0:00' - 3 [-] +1.018
Ascendant : 0Sag12 _______ 3 | ______
Venus : 6Sag13 - 0:38' - 4 [-] +1.257
Moon : 25Sag01 - 4:38' - 4 [R] +13.04
Spirit : 27Sag38 _______ R 4 [-] ______
East Point: 1Cap54 + 0:00' e 5 [-] ______
Saturn : 28Aqu52 - 2:17' R 6 [-] +0.032
3rd Cusp : 3Pis45 + 0:00' 7 | ______
Lilith : 4Pis22 - 3:41' e 7 [-] +0.111
Antemidhea: 6Ari01 + 0:00' 8 | ______
True Node : 21Ari22 + 0:00' - 8 [-] +0.111
Aldebaran : 15Tau00 - 5:28' 9 | alTau
Descendant: 0Gem12 _______ 9 | ______
Jupiter : 9Can18 + 0:26' e 11 [-] -0.074
Vertex : 15Can40 _______ - 11 [-] ______
Pluto : 26Leo18 +14:49' - 12 [d] +0.005
Uranus : 29Leo59 + 0:46' F 12 [-] +0.015
Eart: 0.0000000~
Plut: 32.2433939+
Nept: 31.1806755+
Uran: 18.3003881+
Satu: 9.4634586-
Jupi: 4.4713067+
Mars: 1.5928539+
Sun : 0.9843509+
Venu: 1.6854751+
Merc: 1.2057208-
Moon: 0.0025883-
Node: 0.0026908+
Lili: 0.0027106~
1: Moon (Sag) Tri (Leo) Pluto - a1:16'
2: Mercury (Sco) Tri [Can] Jupiter - s0:04'
3: Saturn (Aqu) Tri (Lib) Neptune - a0:12'
4: Sun (Sco) Squ (Aqu) Saturn - a1:17'
5: Sun (Sco) Squ (Leo) Pluto - s1:16'
6: Saturn (Aqu) Opp (Leo) Uranus - a1:06'
7: Saturn (Aqu) Opp (Leo) Pluto - s2:34'
8: Uranus (Leo) Con (Leo) Pluto - s3:40'
12: Sun (Sco) Squ (Leo) Uranus - a2:24'
13: Mars (Vir) Sex [Can] Jupiter - s1:48'
15: Moon (Sag) Sex (Aqu) Saturn - a3:50'
16: Neptune (Lib) Sex (Leo) Pluto - s2:21'
17: Moon (Sag) Sex (Lib) Neptune - a3:38'
18: Uranus (Leo) Sex (Lib) Neptune - a1:19'
19: Lilith (Pis) Con (Pis) 3rd Cusp - a0:37'
20: Mercury (Sco) Sex (Vir) Mars - a1:43'
21: Moon (Sag) Con (Sag) Spirit - s2:37'
23: Pluto (Leo) Tri (Sag) Spirit - s1:20'
24: Sun (Sco) Con (Sag) Ascendant- s2:37'
25: Moon (Sag) Tri (Leo) Uranus - a4:57'
27: Saturn (Aqu) Sex (Sag) Spirit - a1:13'
28: Venus (Sag) Squ (Pis) Lilith - s1:50'
29: Neptune (Lib) Sex (Sag) Spirit - a1:00'
32: Venus (Sag) Squ (Vir) Mars - a4:53'
33: Uranus (Leo) Tri (Sag) Spirit - a2:20'
34: Moon (Sag) Tri [Ari] Node - s3:39'
-adjudicated by DJM 4 May 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPNVOv5ljD7YrHM/nEQJNTwCgrgbDU+r72Zw683EC7e6NU3gYmPMAniGs
RlSH6hahY8D8eHUTMIHzcHVV
=lXUV
joyce small
Anonymous wrote:
So this individual doesn't rely on himself enough?
> Yes...the house-cusps in this chart are synchronous;
> four planets-transiting at birth, namely 1) Jupiter
> transits to reign in the ninth house of fortune; 2)
> Saturn souljourn transits benign to the first house
> of-self; 3) Mars transits to Mercury's ruling house,
> and 4) head of the dragon transits to exaltation in
> the sixth house...as if to "chasten" fallen Neptune!
> In the sixth house of servants, wisdom is fallen to
> intellect; Mercury doesn't mind, as Mercury IS mind.
> Beware inclination towards "mental" rationalization.
So this invididual is too rational and not intuitive enough?
> Jupiter is the chrono-logical trigger in this chart,
> transiting the cusp maybe just seconds before birth.
>
> Jupiter rules-supreme for his charity, a charitable
> soul, but expectedly disciplined, yet undisciplined?
> These are the common traits of the Saturnian psyche,
> to revel in discipline, so much so as to abandon it
> from time/to/time--as to change at a moment-in-time;
> time, Saturn's reign. This person commands his time.
> change, change, time, time, time...time, time, time.
> Time, I say time again! Timing is under this soul's
> ultimate obsession, Saturn loves Venus in time. See?
> That's why Saturn debilitates under Mars at morning,
> this inferior, the temporal aspect-of-timing to wit.
So this individual feels compelled to do things at certain times?
Why? What does it portend for this individual?
> I'm typing especially hard at this
> point in my Adjudication: indicative of tension from
> my point of seeing; I don't like this malefic aspect,
> I think because Pluton is centered between them, see?
> Oblivion is white and very frightening to every soul!
Are you saying this individual is in some physical danger?
> I don't like the Sun on the Ascendant beforehand, as
> this is oft-indicative of a very powerful ruler-ship,
> even subordinance of principalities and powers. See?
Subordinated to whom? Another person? A religion? An idea?
> I must stop for now.
>
> God is my Judge
Thanks again for your detailed write-up. I'm still a little confused as to what it
all means, however. For example, is this individual more likely to be a killer or a
healer? A genius or a dullard? In perfect health his entire life or constantly
beset by physical ailments?
Rodney
Anonymous
My pleasure. I'm unable to add much more to this
horoscope reading. I appreciate your questions
and interest, but I must only answer briefly.
>
>See below questions:
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>><snips>
>> Please accept my tendency towards brevity, in doing
>> judicial horoscopes--as rulerships of these planets
>> are pronounced in this chart. Moon ruling in fourth
>> house in danger of outside influence in this soul's
>> experience, as to synthesize or integrate influence
>> sometimes, possibly often, without sufficient cause,
>> such as to read these very words then be influenced
>> by them. In this sense, one can only hope that this
>> advise proves prudent, even a warning for this soul.
>
>So this individual doesn't rely on himself enough?
>
Appearances can be deceiving.
>
>> Yes...the house-cusps in this chart are synchronous;
>> four planets-transiting at birth, namely 1) Jupiter
>> transits to reign in the ninth house of fortune; 2)
>> Saturn souljourn transits benign to the first house
>> of-self; 3) Mars transits to Mercury's ruling house,
>> and 4) head of the dragon transits to exaltation in
>> the sixth house...as if to "chasten" fallen Neptune!
>> In the sixth house of servants, wisdom is fallen to
>> intellect; Mercury doesn't mind, as Mercury IS mind.
>> Beware inclination towards "mental" rationalization.
>
>So this invididual is too rational and not intuitive enough?
>
There are different spheres of rationale, not just the
mental plane. Mercury steals readily from other Gods...
>
>> Jupiter is the chrono-logical trigger in this chart,
>> transiting the cusp maybe just seconds before birth.
>>
>> Jupiter rules-supreme for his charity, a charitable
>> soul, but expectedly disciplined, yet undisciplined?
>> These are the common traits of the Saturnian psyche,
>> to revel in discipline, so much so as to abandon it
>> from time/to/time--as to change at a moment-in-time;
>> time, Saturn's reign. This person commands his time.
>> change, change, time, time, time...time, time, time.
>> Time, I say time again! Timing is under this soul's
>> ultimate obsession, Saturn loves Venus in time. See?
>> That's why Saturn debilitates under Mars at morning,
>> this inferior, the temporal aspect-of-timing to wit.
>
>So this individual feels compelled to do things at certain times?
>
Saturn, Kronus, the Scythe, is strong in the horoscope,
paramount in the psyche, hence could be unconscious of
this--being so near to self as to be taken for granted.
Cf. Earth's gravity as the heaviness of the human body,
being ceaslessly pulled down towards her geocenter yet
we just as quickly forget about gravity's pull as soon
as we take our mind off it, yet gravity is always here.
The tail of the dragon is benefic in the eighth house.
>
>> I'm typing especially hard at this
>> point in my Adjudication: indicative of tension from
>> my point of seeing; I don't like this malefic aspect,
>> I think because Pluton is centered between them, see?
>> Oblivion is white and very frightening to every soul!
>
>Are you saying this individual is in some physical danger?
>
What I have written I have written. I leave it at that.
>
>> I don't like the Sun on the Ascendant beforehand, as
>> this is oft-indicative of a very powerful ruler-ship,
>> even subordinance of principalities and powers. See?
>
>Subordinated to whom? Another person? A religion? An idea?
>
>> I must stop for now.
>>
>> God is my Judge
>
>Thanks again for your detailed write-up. I'm still a little confused as to
>what it
>all means, however. For example, is this individual more likely to be a killer
>or a
>healer? A genius or a dullard? In perfect health his entire life or
>constantly
>beset by physical ailments?
>
>Rodney
>
Fortune in the fourth house is malefic. I must stop.
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPNXwTpljD7YrHM/nEQJ3hwCghiZ5t7ViPCZek7zy4UyQ5rwJ2Y0AnjAm
sATdXTTNI1jnvC+RNPyRNy8Q
=sYFB
Willy
"Anonymous" <nob...@noisebox.remailer.org> wrote in message
news:c88ddb154bbbc69d...@noisebox.remailer.org...
com
>
Never anonymous Bud
>Thanks for the detailed write-up. See below questions:
WHY would you POSSIBLY thank him??
He hasn't said ANYTHING useful, or even real.
He knows how to run a freeware astrology program,
and how to find nonsense interpretations for the
readings the program spews out.
All of it is pure garbage.
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
It's your SIG, say what you want to say....
joyce small
> Having lost his job as dog catcher, joyce small <jms...@erols.com> posted this...
>
> >Thanks for the detailed write-up. See below questions:
>
> WHY would you POSSIBLY thank him??
Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond to a request
with a detailed write-up at no charge.
> He hasn't said ANYTHING useful, or even real.
Maybe and maybe not.
> He knows how to run a freeware astrology program,
> and how to find nonsense interpretations for the
> readings the program spews out.
>
> All of it is pure garbage.
See above.
> To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
>
> Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
>
> It's your SIG, say what you want to say....
Rodney
Never anonymous Bud
>Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond to a request
>with a detailed write-up at no charge.
What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
>> He hasn't said ANYTHING useful, or even real.
>
>Maybe and maybe not.
Sorry, there is NO 'maybe' about it. Ask anyone in the astrology newsgroups.
joyce small
> Having lost his job as dog catcher, joyce small <jms...@erols.com> posted this...
>
> >Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond to a request
> >with a detailed write-up at no charge.
>
> What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our era, but at one time most
astronomers were also astrologers. In any event, what is the harm here? Why not simply
killfile Mr. Min and all respondents to him?
Rodney
George Dishman
news:3CD70663...@erols.com...
> Never anonymous Bud wrote:
>
> > Having lost his job as dog catcher, joyce small <jms...@erols.com>
posted this...
> >
> > >Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond
to a request
> > >with a detailed write-up at no charge.
> >
> > What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple
inappropriate newsgroups.
>
> Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our era, but at
one time most
They are inappropriate in any era because astrology is excluded by
the charter of the group. They are also inappropriate because these
groups do not permit binaries.
> astronomers were also astrologers. In any event, what is the harm here?
Why not simply
> killfile Mr. Min and all respondents to him?
Most of us do, but he deliberately randomises the posting source to
defeat normal killfile techniques. The only way to block his drivel
is to block _all_ posts coming via the anonymous remailers he uses.
That effectively censors anyone who uses them for legitimate reasons.
His posting is simply a ruse to operate a denial of service attack
against anyone using those facilities. There are ample groups where
he could post and be welcomed if he were genuine, some of which are
included in this thread. Clearly that is not his aim so you have to
wonder what his motives are.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
Mac
<jms...@erols.com> wrote:
>Never anonymous Bud wrote:
> Having lost his job as dog catcher, joyce small <jms...@erols.com> posted this...
> >Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond to a request
> >with a detailed write-up at no charge.
> What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our
era, but at one time most astronomers were also astrologers. In
any event, what is the harm here? Why not simply killfile Mr.
Min and all respondents to him?
Rodney
Well, with all due respect, the matter is not as simple as you
postulate.
This Daniel Joseph Min creature lacks manners.
Please check for yourself (via DejaNews) but he was kicked off
several ISP's for his spamming, his trolling, his violation of
policies.
He then sought out the ReMailers: a system originally set up to
help those who might face political repression but is now
apparently largely used by pedophiles, scammers, etc.
PLEASE NOTE, when you check, the antics this Daniel Jospeh Min
employs.
He trolls for his "customers" and spams his "ads"...
IN ADDITION, please note that, although he brags about
kill-filing others (once he realized he was being kill-filed by
many), he has taken steps to constantly mutate his "name", his
"address" so that he can avoid kill-files and pollute several
Newsgroups.
Kindly save your ire for that ill-mannered lout who spams his
balderdash to many inappropriate venues.
---Mac
Never anonymous Bud
this...
>> What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
>
>Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our
>era, but at one time most astronomers were also astrologers.
Which STILL doesn't make your horoscope on-topic for alt.prophecies.nostradamus.
Never anonymous Bud
this...
> Why not simply killfile Mr. Min and all respondents to him?
I'd be HAPPY to, if you can TELL me what name he'll use next, and after that, and after THAT...
AND the names of ever fool who just HAS to reply to him...
joyce small
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 18:40:35 -0400, joyce small
> <jms...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Never anonymous Bud wrote:
> > Having lost his job as dog catcher, joyce small <jms...@erols.com> posted this...
> > >Whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Min has taken the time to respond to a request
> > >with a detailed write-up at no charge.
> ************ **********
> > What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
> ******* ********************
> Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our
> era, but at one time most astronomers were also astrologers. In
> any event, what is the harm here? Why not simply killfile Mr.
> Min and all respondents to him?
> Rodney
> ***************
> Well, with all due respect, the matter is not as simple as you
> postulate.
> This Daniel Joseph Min creature lacks manners.
Some of the most impolite people on the Internet are so-called skeptics, who in many cases
are nothing but debunkers who don't bother to get their facts straight. Check out, in
particular, sci.skeptic and alt.paranormal to see how they treat any idea that is outside
the mainstream.
> Please check for yourself (via DejaNews) but he was kicked off
> several ISP's for his spamming, his trolling, his violation of
> policies.
Be more specific as to what you mean by "spamming." If he deliberately floods people's
e-mail addresses with hundreds of daily messages to slow down or crash their computers,
that's serious. If it's just a matter of posting a few messages per day on Usenet, that's
not serious, in my opinion.
> He then sought out the ReMailers: a system originally set up to
> help those who might face political repression but is now
> apparently largely used by pedophiles, scammers, etc.
Remailers are used by a lot of people who want to remain anonymous.
> PLEASE NOTE, when you check, the antics this Daniel Jospeh Min
> employs.
> He trolls for his "customers" and spams his "ads"...
Does he operate a for-pay service? He hasn't sent me an e-mail yet offering his services
for a charge.
> IN ADDITION, please note that, although he brags about
> kill-filing others (once he realized he was being kill-filed by
> many), he has taken steps to constantly mutate his "name", his
> "address" so that he can avoid kill-files and pollute several
> Newsgroups.
I don't have any problem identifying his posts.
> Kindly save your ire for that ill-mannered lout who spams his
> balderdash to many inappropriate venues.
I don't have ire but again, ill-mannered when compared to whom? Usenet is full of
ill-mannered debunkers. Do they get a free pass?
> ---Mac
Rodney
David Paterson
>Some of the most impolite people on the Internet are so-called skeptics, who in many cases
>are nothing but debunkers who don't bother to get their facts straight. Check out, in
>particular, sci.skeptic and alt.paranormal to see how they treat any idea that is outside
>the mainstream.
Anyone who disagrees with someone else's point of view seems to get
called a "debunker" on usenet. We get as many "science debunkers" on
the astronomy groups as I'm sure you do in the psi and paranormal
groups. People who challenge current views of astronomy, cosmology,
relativity etc. They are however on-topic for the groups they post to,
and often start interesting debates.
Some people are polite, some are impolite - the impersonal nature of
usenet tends to bring out the worst in people unfortunately.
And sci.skeptic is _about_ skepticism, which again seems to be taken as
attempted debunking by anyone who disagrees with the opinions expressed.
>> Please check for yourself (via DejaNews) but he was kicked off
>> several ISP's for his spamming, his trolling, his violation of
>> policies.
>
>Be more specific as to what you mean by "spamming." If he deliberately floods people's
>e-mail addresses with hundreds of daily messages to slow down or crash their computers,
>that's serious. If it's just a matter of posting a few messages per day on Usenet, that's
>not serious, in my opinion.
Spamming isn't confined to email. Posting large numbers of messages to
inappropriate groups is also spamming, and when people have to pay to
download his drivel (as many of us do) it does start to become serious.
Maybe it's only a fraction of a penny/cent/krone etc. per message, but
multiplied over several years and millions of people it's a huge waste
of money, time and bandwidth.
Would you appreciate it if astronomers started posting several messages
a day saying how wrong astrology is (and changing their names every time
so you couldn't killfile them). Or perhaps cross-posting a 100 message
a day thread on General Relativity as well, just because someone
mentioned the word "horoscope" at some point? That's the kind of
actions we regularly see from Min, and which annoy people on groups like
alt.astronomy and sci.astro.
>> He then sought out the ReMailers: a system originally set up to
>> help those who might face political repression but is now
>> apparently largely used by pedophiles, scammers, etc.
>
>Remailers are used by a lot of people who want to remain anonymous.
Yes, and many of these people, who have valid reasons for staying
anonymous, may start to find it difficult to be heard if others killfile
everything from these remailers because of the idiocy of people like
Min.
>> PLEASE NOTE, when you check, the antics this Daniel Jospeh Min
>> employs.
>> He trolls for his "customers" and spams his "ads"...
>
>Does he operate a for-pay service? He hasn't sent me an e-mail yet offering his services
>for a charge.
>
>> IN ADDITION, please note that, although he brags about
>> kill-filing others (once he realized he was being kill-filed by
>> many), he has taken steps to constantly mutate his "name", his
>> "address" so that he can avoid kill-files and pollute several
>> Newsgroups.
>
>I don't have any problem identifying his posts.
Well, perhaps you could share that trick with the rest of us, since his
continual morphing means we can't killfile him effectively for more than
a few days.
>> Kindly save your ire for that ill-mannered lout who spams his
>> balderdash to many inappropriate venues.
>
>I don't have ire but again, ill-mannered when compared to whom? Usenet is full of
>ill-mannered debunkers. Do they get a free pass?
Usenet is also full of people who want to discuss their chosen subject,
whether it's astrology, astronomy, prophecies or whatever, and would
like to do it _without_ cross-posted nonsense which has no relevance to
their area, and which only causes these kinds of arguments. (Perhaps
that's Min's aim - to stir up as much trouble as possible between the
groups he cross-posts to :-)
And please don't type-cast everyone who disagrees with your view of the
world as a "debunker". I'm quite happy for you to believe whatever you
want, but just because I can't agree with it, and can put forward valid
scientific arguments why it's flawed, does that make me a debunker too?
David P.
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
> Why not simply
>killfile Mr. Min and all respondents to him?
I guess because it just ain't simple!
Try!
--
Peter
Bill Nelson
> Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our era, but at one time most
> astronomers were also astrologers. In any event, what is the harm here? Why not simply
> killfile Mr. Min and all respondents to him?
We can kill file most of the respondants. But we cannot kill file the
bastard himself, as he keeps changing his posting names.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Anyone who disagrees with someone else's point of view seems to get
> called a "debunker" on usenet. We get as many "science debunkers" on
> the astronomy groups as I'm sure you do in the psi and paranormal
> groups. People who challenge current views of astronomy, cosmology,
> relativity etc. They are however on-topic for the groups they post to,
> and often start interesting debates.
No. They are called "debunkers" only by the quacks, frauds, kooks
and others that prey on the gullible.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Everett Hickey
Because Mr Min changes his name and headers specifically to make this next
to impossible... killfile him, and within days he'll be operating under
another name. He's a troll more than anything else... I think he's more a
troll than a serious astrologer anyway.
Jean Guernon
Never anonymous Bud a écrit :
>
> Having lost his job as dog catcher, Mac <nur99-NoGreenEgg...@spiritone.com> posted
> this...
>
> >> What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
> >
> >Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our
> >era, but at one time most astronomers were also astrologers.
>
> Which STILL doesn't make your horoscope on-topic for alt.prophecies.nostradamus.
>
Well, it isn't part of the true prophecies of Nostadamus, but it was
part of the rest of his work and that is why I don't get why you go
after Min for that.
It is better posting that most here anyway, better than all those losers
that promote racism (at large or anti-Semitism) and terrorism supporters
(either of IRA terrorism, Prolife terrorism, or the Arab terrorist
organizations) . At least it is not blatant lies.
It is just info whatever whomever does with it.
I really don't get you guys.
GO AFTER THE REAL ASSHOLES HERE!
J.
Jonathan Silverlight
<nur99-NoGreenEgg...@spiritone.com> writes
>He then sought out the ReMailers: a system originally set up to
>help those who might face political repression but is now
>apparently largely used by pedophiles, scammers, etc.
Apparently is probably the word.
Remailers would act quickly to block anyone using them for illegal
purposes, for their own protection if nothing else.
OTOH, the "Church" of Scientology found one remailer so annoying that
they forced it to close.
Jean Guernon
Jean Guernon a écrit :
>
> Never anonymous Bud a écrit :
> >
> > Having lost his job as dog catcher, Mac <nur99-NoGreenEgg...@spiritone.com> posted
> > this...
> >
> > >> What I DISagree with is your cross-posting this to multiple inappropriate newsgroups.
> > >
> > >Arguably alt.astronomy and sci.astro are inappropriate in our
> > >era, but at one time most astronomers were also astrologers.
> >
> > Which STILL doesn't make your horoscope on-topic for alt.prophecies.nostradamus.
> >
>
> Well, it isn't part of the true prophecies of Nostadamus, but it was
> part of the rest of his work and that is why I don't get why you go
> after Min for that.
Even then, although the Seer just used horary astrology for the
prophecies, although he just made the chart for each revelations he got
before making up the poems of those he would transmit to future
generations, still some people, the least of which is not Lemesurier,
believe (wrongly) that astrology had a role. under those conditions, any
sky chart interpretation of any event may be of interest to at least
those people.
Why don't you yell at people like Lemesurier then? Do you find them off
topics? He even has imported his false statements in our FAQs!!!
No. You attack Min. Why?
J.
Everett Hickey
news:M7IDdV0N...@jsilver.freeserve.co.uk...
Not exactly a rarity with them. They're known for using all the legal
manuvering at their disposal to silence groups who bothers or openly
disagrees with them. Don't even get me started on their takeover of one of
the major Cult Info Hotlines (before they took it over, they were labeled as
a cult to those who called. After they took it over, people who called were
told that the Church was a supportive organization). Any website that says
things they don't like told tends to be targeted. Then again, I haven't
seen evidence for a number of less legal accusations made against them.
But... their core beliefs are a little more known than they used to be, and
they're just plain weird (xenu the alien conqueror, spirits trapped in
volcanoes, all your problems being due to alien demons living in your body,
etc).
On another note, I once posted a relatively light jibe about some of their
activities in a newsgroup (at the time, under a handle not generally
associated with my name). About a week later I received a physical letter
from them inviting me to a local gathering. Might have been coincidence,
but it was a little odd.
Mac
May we assume that, prior to your posting this reply, you really
took the time and made the effort to use DejaNews (or, whatever)
to track some of the history of this Daniel Jospeh Min creature
you apparently are defending?
Look at some of his posts.
He basically "advertises".
He also makes "predictions" --- so far he has an astouding 100%
error rate.
As to your other comments, many have tried to kill-file him.
Please note carefully, when you check out and verify what has
been said, when you independently investigate, the antics that
this Daniel Jospeh Min creature employs.
And, yes, he is spamming and he is a troll.
Please check his record for yourself.
On a regular basis he has posted messages in excess of 500-600
lines; not just once, but several times per day. Often he has
posted the same message many times per day. To multiple
Newsgroups.
What shuold that tell you about the manners and courtesy of this
Daniel Joseph Min ?
As for his bastardizing astronomy, and his bastardizing the
quatrains of Nostradamus, and getting those wrong, the people in
the astronomy and the Nostradamus and other Newsgroups have
repeatedly asked him to cease posting there...
As for his horoscopes...?
Again, please take the time to use the DejaNews to track the
antics of this Daniel Joseph Min creature rather than take my
word for it regarding his lack of manners, his absence of
courtesy, his profound errors and monumental rudeness.
---Mac
****************** ********************
*************************
On Mon, 06 May 2002 21:31:18 -0400, joyce small
joyce small
> joyce small <jms...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Some of the most impolite people on the Internet are so-called skeptics, who in many cases
> >are nothing but debunkers who don't bother to get their facts straight. Check out, in
> >particular, sci.skeptic and alt.paranormal to see how they treat any idea that is outside
> >the mainstream.
>
> Anyone who disagrees with someone else's point of view seems to get
> called a "debunker" on usenet. We get as many "science debunkers" on
> the astronomy groups as I'm sure you do in the psi and paranormal
> groups. People who challenge current views of astronomy, cosmology,
> relativity etc. They are however on-topic for the groups they post to,
> and often start interesting debates.
But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would argue that astronomy
newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
> Some people are polite, some are impolite - the impersonal nature of
> usenet tends to bring out the worst in people unfortunately.
Agreed, and hundreds of people on Usenet are more impolite than Mr. Min.
> And sci.skeptic is _about_ skepticism, which again seems to be taken as
> attempted debunking by anyone who disagrees with the opinions expressed.
>
> >> Please check for yourself (via DejaNews) but he was kicked off
> >> several ISP's for his spamming, his trolling, his violation of
> >> policies.
If that's true, it's unfortunate, but again, no worse than others I've encountered on Usenet.
> >Be more specific as to what you mean by "spamming." If he deliberately floods people's
> >e-mail addresses with hundreds of daily messages to slow down or crash their computers,
> >that's serious. If it's just a matter of posting a few messages per day on Usenet, that's
> >not serious, in my opinion.
>
> Spamming isn't confined to email. Posting large numbers of messages to
> inappropriate groups is also spamming, and when people have to pay to
> download his drivel (as many of us do) it does start to become serious.
> Maybe it's only a fraction of a penny/cent/krone etc. per message, but
> multiplied over several years and millions of people it's a huge waste
> of money, time and bandwidth.
You're making a value judgment. Consider this scenario: Someone makes a post to an
"inappropriate" newsgroup that happens to catch the eye of someone who never reads the
"appropriate" newsgroup to which the post "should" have been confined. But that someone finds
something of value in the "inappropriate" post nonetheless. Now I realize that you don't think
that anyone who reads sci.astro or alt.astronomy would ever find something of value in Mr.
Min's posts, but the more posts are restricted to "appropriate" newsgroups by the Usenet Police
the less likely it is for this scenario to occur.
> Would you appreciate it if astronomers started posting several messages
> a day saying how wrong astrology is (and changing their names every time
> so you couldn't killfile them). Or perhaps cross-posting a 100 message
> a day thread on General Relativity as well, just because someone
> mentioned the word "horoscope" at some point? That's the kind of
> actions we regularly see from Min, and which annoy people on groups like
> alt.astronomy and sci.astro.
First of all, I can't speak for astrology newsgroups, but on alt.paranormal a large portion of
the regular posters don't believe in the paranormal and ridicule anyone who does. Second of
all, with respect to the number of posts from Mr. Min, from what I've seen he's not nearly as
prolific as some other Usenet posters. So, if you want him curbed, others should be curbed as
well. I'm sure that would make some people happy, but again, something would be lost in the
process.
> >> He then sought out the ReMailers: a system originally set up to
> >> help those who might face political repression but is now
> >> apparently largely used by pedophiles, scammers, etc.
> >
> >Remailers are used by a lot of people who want to remain anonymous.
>
> Yes, and many of these people, who have valid reasons for staying
> anonymous, may start to find it difficult to be heard if others killfile
> everything from these remailers because of the idiocy of people like
> Min.
>
> >> PLEASE NOTE, when you check, the antics this Daniel Jospeh Min
> >> employs.
> >> He trolls for his "customers" and spams his "ads"...
> >
> >Does he operate a for-pay service? He hasn't sent me an e-mail yet offering his services
> >for a charge.
I haven't seen a response from anyone on this. Does Mr. Min operate a for-pay service or not?
> >> IN ADDITION, please note that, although he brags about
> >> kill-filing others (once he realized he was being kill-filed by
> >> many), he has taken steps to constantly mutate his "name", his
> >> "address" so that he can avoid kill-files and pollute several
> >> Newsgroups.
> >
> >I don't have any problem identifying his posts.
>
> Well, perhaps you could share that trick with the rest of us, since his
> continual morphing means we can't killfile him effectively for more than
> a few days.
Most of them seem to be in his own name, in the name of "Nomen Nescio" or "Anonymous."
> >> Kindly save your ire for that ill-mannered lout who spams his
> >> balderdash to many inappropriate venues.
> >
> >I don't have ire but again, ill-mannered when compared to whom? Usenet is full of
> >ill-mannered debunkers. Do they get a free pass?
>
> Usenet is also full of people who want to discuss their chosen subject,
> whether it's astrology, astronomy, prophecies or whatever, and would
> like to do it _without_ cross-posted nonsense which has no relevance to
> their area, and which only causes these kinds of arguments. (Perhaps
> that's Min's aim - to stir up as much trouble as possible between the
> groups he cross-posts to :-)
See above comments about making value judgments.
> And please don't type-cast everyone who disagrees with your view of the
> world as a "debunker".
When did I do that? I simply said: "Some of the most impolite people on the Internet are
so-called skeptics, who in many cases are nothing but debunkers who don't bother to get their
facts straight." I stand by that statement.
> I'm quite happy for you to believe whatever you
> want, but just because I can't agree with it, and can put forward valid
> scientific arguments why it's flawed, does that make me a debunker too?
Not if you can actually "put forward valid scientific arguments why it's flawed." But there's
the rub: Many on Usenet have a knee-jerk reaction against the paranormal and criticize without
bothering to get the facts.
> David P.
Rodney
Chosp
:
> But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would argue
that astronomy
> newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
Some would argue in favor of the existence of the tooth fairy.
Astrology is, in fact, off topic in any science newsgroup.
Jean Guernon
Chosp a écrit :
Nostradamus was called an astronomer...
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/n_astronom_us.jpg
Come to think of it, he surely was one for his time.
Of course, there is not much left of his passion, but what he could see
beyond the stars...
Anyway...
J.
Never anonymous Bud
>But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would argue that astronomy
>newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
You IGNORANT slut.
Alt.prophecies.nostradamus is NEITHER an astrology NOR an astronomy newsgroup.
Bill Nelson
> But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would argue that astronomy
> newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
Interesting debates? Only to a small handful of people who think such
posts are on topic for an astronomy newsgroup.
>> Some people are polite, some are impolite - the impersonal nature of
>> usenet tends to bring out the worst in people unfortunately.
> Agreed, and hundreds of people on Usenet are more impolite than Mr. Min.
Fortunately, few of them post here. Most of the ones that do can be
killfiled. They don't go out of their way to force others to receive
their garbage.
>> Well, perhaps you could share that trick with the rest of us, since his
>> continual morphing means we can't killfile him effectively for more than
>> a few days.
> Most of them seem to be in his own name, in the name of "Nomen Nescio" or "Anonymous."
Yes, but you cannot killfile based on that alone. At least, my software does
not allow it. I need the full name - and that changes with every post.
>> Usenet is also full of people who want to discuss their chosen subject,
>> whether it's astrology, astronomy, prophecies or whatever, and would
>> like to do it _without_ cross-posted nonsense which has no relevance to
>> their area, and which only causes these kinds of arguments. (Perhaps
>> that's Min's aim - to stir up as much trouble as possible between the
>> groups he cross-posts to :-)
> See above comments about making value judgments.
No "value judgement" involved. Astrology is NOT astronomy. It is not a
subset of astronomy. Now you might be able to make a case for him posting
his stuff to a mythology or mysticism group.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Peter Lemesurier
<jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Remailers would act quickly to block anyone using them for illegal
>purposes, for their own protection if nothing else.
The remailer that I contacted in this connection simply said that they
had no idea of what was being posted in their name.
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
>Astrology is, in fact, off topic in any science newsgroup.
Depends on who defines what science is, doesn't it -- and when?
I mean, it WAS a science a few centuries ago...
--
Peter
Chosp
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3CD8BF3A...@globetrotter.net...
>
>
> Chosp a écrit :
> >
> > "joyce small" <jms...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CD8846E...@erols.com...
> > :
> > > But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would
argue
> > that astronomy
> > > newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
> >
> > Some would argue in favor of the existence of the tooth fairy.
> > Astrology is, in fact, off topic in any science newsgroup.
>
> Nostradamus was called an astronomer...
Not by anyone in the astronomical community.
He was also called a fool, a liar, and a fraud.
Chosp
"Peter Lemesurier" <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t9rhdu4591uv1vn6b...@4ax.com...
Then it should have been posted to science newsgroups
a few centuries ago.
It is not science now and hasn't been for longer than
any of us here have been alive.
joyce small
Well, okay. I would say that you are an example of one of the persons I was talking about
when I said "hundreds of people on Usenet are more impolite than Mr. Min."
Rodney
Jean Guernon
Chosp a écrit :
Maybe you need to go deeper in astronomy history or else astronomy has
lost some of its legacy.
> He was also called a fool, a liar, and a fraud.
By fools maybe or by ignorant people.
J.
Wally Anglesea™
Personally, I don't call Nosty a fool. However, Anyone who beleives he
had prophetic visions, is, by definition, a fool.
HTH
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Jean Guernon
"Wally Anglesea™" a écrit :
>
> On Wed, 08 May 2002 23:15:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Chosp a écrit :
> >>
> >> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3CD8BF3A...@globetrotter.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Chosp a écrit :
> >> > >
> >> > > "joyce small" <jms...@erols.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:3CD8846E...@erols.com...
> >> > > :
> >> > > > But Min's posts may also start interesting debates, and some would
> >> argue
> >> > > that astronomy
> >> > > > newsgroups are not off-topic for astrology posts.
> >> > >
> >> > > Some would argue in favor of the existence of the tooth fairy.
> >> > > Astrology is, in fact, off topic in any science newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> > Nostradamus was called an astronomer...
> >>
> >> Not by anyone in the astronomical community.
> >
> >Maybe you need to go deeper in astronomy history or else astronomy has
> >lost some of its legacy.
> >
> >> He was also called a fool, a liar, and a fraud.
> >
> >By fools maybe or by ignorant people.
>
> Personally, I don't call Nosty a fool. However, Anyone who beleives he
> had prophetic visions, is, by definition, a fool.
> HTH
One day, it is those that will NOT believe that he is the (only) modern
day prophet will be branded fools...
But yes, this is a unique post-medieval phenomenae. So "by definition"
logic is a factor that dictates that this is either unprecedented or
loony, since no one else can proclaim to have revelations from God
himself; but one must take into consideration the exception that confirm
the rule, that is, until the events of the Centuries are known to have
happened and are recognizd as prophecies throughout the world.
"The events [...] that, in the course of time, and in all the regions,
everyone will admit as having occurred"
(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM14 )
Until then, only those that know, or those that keep an open mind, can
perhaps grasp the "incredible"...
Do you believe in God?
J.
Robert Gilster
>
>
> "Wally AngleseaT" a écrit :
No I don't. If you want to believe in some madman's rantings, go right on
ahead I won't stop you or try to disuade you - just keep your opinions out
of sci.asto unless they involve scientific questions about ASTRONOMICAL
topics.
Wally Anglesea™
<jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>One day, it is those that will NOT believe that he is the (only) modern
>day prophet will be branded fools...
yeah, riiiiigjghhhht.
>
>But yes, this is a unique post-medieval phenomenae. So "by definition"
>logic is a factor that dictates that this is either unprecedented or
>loony, since no one else can proclaim to have revelations from God
>himself; but one must take into consideration the exception that confirm
>the rule, that is, until the events of the Centuries are known to have
>happened and are recognizd as prophecies throughout the world.
that's what we call postdiction. It's called fitting the vague
prognostications and performing mental gymnastics until you make the
data fit. Something Nostradamnuts are exceptionally good at.
>
>"The events [...] that, in the course of time, and in all the regions,
>everyone will admit as having occurred"
>(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM14 )
>
>Until then, only those that know, or those that keep an open mind, can
>perhaps grasp the "incredible"...
>
>Do you believe in God?
What difference does that make?
Jean Guernon
"Wally Anglesea™" a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 09 May 2002 02:33:31 GMT, Jean Guernon
> <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> >One day, it is those that will NOT believe that he is the (only) modern
> >day prophet will be branded fools...
>
> yeah, riiiiigjghhhht.
>
> >
> >But yes, this is a unique post-medieval phenomenae. So "by definition"
> >logic is a factor that dictates that this is either unprecedented or
> >loony, since no one else can proclaim to have revelations from God
> >himself; but one must take into consideration the exception that confirm
> >the rule, that is, until the events of the Centuries are known to have
> >happened and are recognizd as prophecies throughout the world.
>
> that's what we call postdiction. It's called fitting the vague
> prognostications and performing mental gymnastics until you make the
> data fit. Something Nostradamnuts are exceptionally good at.
>
This is Lemesuriades. But not reality.
> >
> >"The events [...] that, in the course of time, and in all the regions,
> >everyone will admit as having occurred"
> >(http://www.michelnostradamus.org/henri2.html#BM14 )
> >
> >Until then, only those that know, or those that keep an open mind, can
> >perhaps grasp the "incredible"...
> >
> >Do you believe in God?
>
> What difference does that make?
Well, if you don't believe in God you have no concept of the absolute,
how can you know that these are not revelations from God?
J.
Anon Ymous
> Personally, I don't call Nosty a fool. However, Anyone who beleives he
> had prophetic visions, is, by definition, a fool.
> HTH
Personally, I can't say whether or not N. had prophetic visions.
However, Im fairly certain that the definition of "fool" contains no
reference to Nostradamus. So much for "by definition." Sounded real
nice though.
STM
Anon Ymous
Jean, some friendly advice...
Only try to invoke logical arguments with rabid atheists if you enjoy
pissing them off. They're just as bad when it comes to resorting to
assumption and circular argument as any other religious
fundementalist--and just as fanatically devoted.
Shastasthenes
Chris Franks
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote
>
> No. You attack Min. Why?> > I really don't get you guys.
> > <then>
> > GO AFTER THE REAL ASSHOLES HERE!
See, you just answered your own question!!!
joyce small
That's good. It reminds of once, when the late Howard Cosell (for you non-Americans, a controversial sports announcer)
proclaimed while providing color commentary on an American pro football game: "[The tackler] literally crushed the
quarterback." I expected to see the quarterback reduced to a fine powder, but lo and behold, he got up and continued
to play in the game.
Rodney
Robert Gilster
"Anon Ymous" <shas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5c2e70b2.02050...@posting.google.com...> > "Wally AngleseaT" a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Thu, 09 May 2002 02:33:31 GMT, Jean Guernon
> > > <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Until then, only those that know, or those that keep an open mind,
can
> > > >perhaps grasp the "incredible"...
> > > >
> > > >Do you believe in God?
> > >
> > > What difference does that make?
> >
> > Well, if you don't believe in God you have no concept of the absolute,
> > how can you know that these are not revelations from God?
>
> Jean, some friendly advice...
>
> Only try to invoke logical arguments with rabid atheists if you enjoy
> pissing them off. They're just as bad when it comes to resorting to
> assumption and circular argument as any other religious
> fundementalist--and just as fanatically devoted.
>
> Shastasthenes
And what makes you say that?
@mbnet.fi John & Tarja Shakespeare
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
So what? Trial by ordeal (torture, tanguin, etc.) was considered to be
justice a few centuries ago. It is not so considered today, nor do we
accept now that its practice constituted justice even then.
Astrology was then and is now just another religious mumbo-jumbo, in the
style of augury. The fact that casting horoscopes was performed by (or
even demanded of) early scientists should not be held against them, nor
may it be used to promote the suggestion that astrology is or was a
science. It is a measure of progress that scientists may today reject
astrology, just as they may reject augury: they are not required to cast
meaningless horoscopes or produce spurious predictions based on the
entrails of sheep.
Best Regards,
John.
--
Remove the dots and the DOTS from shäkespeäreDOTS to get a valid email
address.
Anon Ymous
That's good. As the first example is a flagrant use of a circular
argument (where the gentleman assumes that the very subject he's
trying to attack is rubbish, thereby allowing him to proclaim any
"believer" a fool "by definition"), and yours is an inept metaphor
comparing one literal statement with a misunderstanding of a word in
another literal statement in an attempt to show that the original
poster was exagerating or trying to use his own metaphor, your
comparison is inappropriate (a.k.a. strawman)--but Im glad it reminded
you of a football game.
You may want to look up the word "crush," then look up the word
"fool." I think even you might be able to see how "crush" was used
literally, but "fool" is in no way associated "by definition" with
people who believe in Nostradamus.
OOOOOOHhhh...Shasta *literally* (no pun intended) crushes Joyce!
You'll notice in the definitions below several possible meanings that
would allow both you and the quarterback to physically survive being
crushed.
crush Pronunciation Key (krsh)
v. crushed, crush·ing, crush·es
v. tr.
To press between opposing bodies so as to break or injure.
To break, pound, or grind (stone or ore, for example) into small
fragments or powder.
To put down; subdue: crushed the rebellion.
To overwhelm or oppress severely: spirits that had been crushed by
rejection and failure.
To crumple or rumple: crushed the freshly ironed shirt.
To hug, especially with great force.
To press upon, shove, or crowd.
To extract or obtain by pressing or squeezing: crush juice from a
grape.
Archaic. To drink; quaff.
Maybe Im hugging you with great force--hahahaha
Shastaman
Peter Lemesurier
<"shäkespeäreDOTS" @mbnet.fi> wrote:
>Astrology was then and is now just another religious mumbo-jumbo, in the
>style of augury. The fact that casting horoscopes was performed by (or
>even demanded of) early scientists should not be held against them, nor
>may it be used to promote the suggestion that astrology is or was a
>science. It is a measure of progress that scientists may today reject
>astrology, just as they may reject augury: they are not required to cast
>meaningless horoscopes or produce spurious predictions based on the
>entrails of sheep.
Whereas all that stuff about Big Bangs. bosons and undetectable Dark
Matter is of course science, and not superstition at all! ;)
--
Peter
Everett Hickey
One (astrology) is based off of old ideas, yet never seems capable of
demonstrating itself... at least, not once has any astrologer who's
crossposted into the astronomy newsgroups been able to demonstrate applied
astrology in any meaningfull way - mostly just going over one or two
historical characters who they claim prophesized current events.... even
though the same passages can be applied to MANY current events just as well.
The Big Bang, Dark Matter, Bosons, etc are all theoretical. People often
forget what that means. It means, at best, that we either see it or see
it's direct effects, and are fairly certain it's there. On the other hand,
it also often means that it's one of many possible explanations for
something, and is one that stands up well enough to not be knocked down.
They're science, rather than superstition, because they're suppositions and
speculation about natural phenomenon and are meant to be taken as ideas or
best guesses. Superstition is stated as fact, generally, isn't meant to be
questioned, and almost always involves specific hostility about something or
someone.
Everett Hickey
news:dLFC8.1065$RV5.1...@news.uswest.net...
Because, very often, it's true. I know, I used to BE a rabid athiest. Then
I got more comfortable with the concept, dropped the chip from my shoulder,
and simply became a plain agnostic... the only truly logical choice, but
that's just my opinion. I know that, as far as such matters go, I know
nothing. And judging from what people argue about, that seems to be more
than most people know.
Anyone who likes to pry at dogma, or twist logic on people who can only
think in one-sided religious absolutes, is just thinking for themselves.
But anyone who feels the need to attack someone's religion itself, simply
because one has faith in something that the other lacks, then they're no
more logical than the most repressed catholic they could ever meet.
btw: side note... if you plan to get into a religious debate with a Jesuit,
practice losing first, because it's generally the only outcome you can
expect, even in a purely logical debate.
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
>The Big Bang, Dark Matter, Bosons, etc are all theoretical. People often
>forget what that means. It means, at best, that we either see it or see
>it's direct effects, and are fairly certain it's there. On the other hand,
>it also often means that it's one of many possible explanations for
>something, and is one that stands up well enough to not be knocked down.
>They're science, rather than superstition, because they're suppositions and
>speculation about natural phenomenon and are meant to be taken as ideas or
>best guesses.
Ah well, now that you say so... ;)
Perhaps you should explain that, though, to all the various
'scientific' spokesmen who talk about them on radio and TV as though
they were all 'fact' -- to say nothing of all those astronomers who
persistently use the present tense about distant galaxies that they
last looked at at least a million years ago? ;)
OK, they often *start* by explaining that by looking 'out there' we're
also looking 'back then' -- a ritual nod towards the idea of
space-time, as it were -- but then they conveniently proceed to forget
it...
Always strikes me as peculiarly medieval!
--
Peter
Everett Hickey
> Ah well, now that you say so... ;)
>
> Perhaps you should explain that, though, to all the various
> 'scientific' spokesmen who talk about them on radio and TV as though
> they were all 'fact' -- to say nothing of all those astronomers who
> persistently use the present tense about distant galaxies that they
> last looked at at least a million years ago? ;)
>
> OK, they often *start* by explaining that by looking 'out there' we're
> also looking 'back then' -- a ritual nod towards the idea of
> space-time, as it were -- but then they conveniently proceed to forget
> it...
>
> Always strikes me as peculiarly medieval!
People, as a whole, want answers... not facts. Whenever I'll point out that
the BB is just a theory, people either dismiss it or get annoyed. If you
explain something as "one way it may have happened" or "we think", they
("they" being the average person) have trouble keeping interest... but if
you speak in absolutes, they listen attentively. They're being enlightened,
being given hard facts. Religion is much the same - religions that talk
about what may be never last, but any religion that decides what IS, often
does last, even if it disagrees with everyone else.
Sagan's "Cosmos" stood out because he constantly pointed out that we don't
"know" much with real certainty, but he had the skill to keep people's
attention even after saying that. Hawking, through his writing, is another.
It's rare to run into people like that.
As for me, I take it for granted that our reality is highly subjective.
Concepts like time and distance, physical existance, etc are all dependant
on your senses and point of view. That's one reason why, while I don't
believe in the supernatural at all, I'm fully capable of accepting it were I
ever to be presented an experience or evidence that would demand it.
But... you're not alone in being annoyed. It's not just science
documentaries that have gotten into the authoritarian habit... history,
geography, even biographies, have become more and more sensationalized, more
and more sweeping and uncomprimising in their statements. I was watching
one recent and otherwise excellent documentary on human evolution recently,
but I kept noticing that not only were they using assumptions since either
disproven or at least made unlikely, but they were handing them out like
gospel. Even Walking with Dinosaurs, one of my favorite documentaries ever,
fell into this habit - they were using highly speculative theory but
offering little or no question as to it's absolute validity... in their
eyes.
@mbnet.fi John & Tarja Shakespeare
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
These, like all scientific thought, are working hypotheses - the best
available theories which are consistent with known observations. All
scientific theories are testable: they are open to falsification by contrary
observations. If evidence arises which falsifies the prevailing hypotheses,
this leads to an _advance_ in science, and is generally welcome (although
individuals associated with the overturned theories may be personally
unhappy). Contrast this with religions, which promote "truth" and require
unquestioning faith of their adherents, denying the possibility of any error
in their doctrine. Astrology is just another one, with the feature that vague
cryptic utterances are claimed - a posteriori - to have been prophesies of
events they clearly did not predict with any precision.
The ChessBrat
Yes, and me too. I consider spamming rude.
>Consider this scenario: Someone makes a post to an
> "inappropriate" newsgroup that happens to catch the eye of someone who never reads the
> "appropriate" newsgroup to which the post "should" have been confined. But that someone finds
> something of value in the "inappropriate" post nonetheless. Now I realize that you don't think
> that anyone who reads sci.astro or alt.astronomy would ever find something of value in Mr.
> Min's posts, but the more posts are restricted to "appropriate" newsgroups by the Usenet Police
> the less likely it is for this scenario to occur.
Consider I confine my car only to the road. Too bad. When driving it
on the sidewalk it would have been a great opportunity for the
pedestrians, delighted to meet a car in their realm and learn of the
benefits of a car. Maybe I should drive it into the kindergarten; it's
good for young children to broaden their scope as early as possible.
As usual characters like min don't come out of the blue. They're
supported by numerous assholes who somehow forget that "trying to get
people to behave in a normal way" is a somewhat different conception
than "Usenet police". As is proven by your response.
Min has many names, so much is clear.
CB
Jean Guernon
Peter Lemesurier a écrit :
Not if you know nuclear physics. It is true though that astrology is
absolutely subhective. But not the prophets.
The only thing that make Nostradamus stand apart is not his astrological
work, but his prophecies, i.e. the revelations he got from God, well,
those that he shared, with the publication of his book the Centuries.
Now if either of you don't believe in God how can you even grasp the
potential for His manifestation in these texts?
J.
Robert Gilster
"Everett Hickey" <lit...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3cdbe152$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
matter that I've found people are uncomfortable with. The only people that
I have been able to discuss religion with are priests, ministers, rabbis -
people who are devoted to their religion and feel comfortable with it. The
rabid born-agains, fundamentalists, young people, and old people, to me at
least, seem unsure of their own beliefs and therefore feel compelled to
vigorously attack atheists and/or people with differing religious beliefs -
as if they are trying to solve their own internal insecurity with religion
in general. Also, many people would ascribe Atheism to being the
anti-religious belief, but in fact many atheists that I know treat it as a
religion - again they are almost lashing out against religion but at the
same time trying to come to terms with its ramifications. True atheism is
merely a philosophical belief that doesn't necessarily change how you feel
toward this universe in general. Atheism doesn't necessarily preclude the
possibility of the afterlife, or the soul, or higher powers. It simply, at
least in my mind, denies the possibility of the ULTIMATE divine entity (in
whatever form). It allows us the possibility to evolve and rise up in the
universe to a "top of the food chain" status - until something else comes
along to knock us down. Its a lame quote, but a good summary "God does not
exist, only beings in various states of evolution".
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
>But... you're not alone in being annoyed. It's not just science
>documentaries that have gotten into the authoritarian habit... history,
>geography, even biographies, have become more and more sensationalized, more
>and more sweeping and uncomprimising in their statements. I was watching
>one recent and otherwise excellent documentary on human evolution recently,
>but I kept noticing that not only were they using assumptions since either
>disproven or at least made unlikely, but they were handing them out like
>gospel. Even Walking with Dinosaurs, one of my favorite documentaries ever,
>fell into this habit - they were using highly speculative theory but
>offering little or no question as to it's absolute validity... in their
>eyes.
Absolutely.
People do like to be certain -- as Hitler was well aware!
--
Peter
Peter Lemesurier
<"shäkespeäreDOTS" @mbnet.fi> wrote:
>These, like all scientific thought, are working hypotheses - the best
>available theories which are consistent with known observations. All
>scientific theories are testable: they are open to falsification by contrary
>observations. If evidence arises which falsifies the prevailing hypotheses,
>this leads to an _advance_ in science, and is generally welcome (although
>individuals associated with the overturned theories may be personally
>unhappy). Contrast this with religions, which promote "truth" and require
>unquestioning faith of their adherents, denying the possibility of any error
>in their doctrine.
And you mean that scientific establishments don't?
What about poor ol' Halton Arp?
--
Peter
Anon Ymous
> > Because, very often, it's true. I know, I used to BE a rabid athiest.
> Then
> > I got more comfortable with the concept, dropped the chip from my
> shoulder,
> > and simply became a plain agnostic... the only truly logical choice, but
> > that's just my opinion. I know that, as far as such matters go, I know
> > nothing. And judging from what people argue about, that seems to be more
> > than most people know.
> >
> > Anyone who likes to pry at dogma, or twist logic on people who can only
> > think in one-sided religious absolutes, is just thinking for themselves.
> > But anyone who feels the need to attack someone's religion itself, simply
> > because one has faith in something that the other lacks, then they're no
> > more logical than the most repressed catholic they could ever meet.
> >
> > btw: side note... if you plan to get into a religious debate with a
> Jesuit,
> > practice losing first, because it's generally the only outcome you can
> > expect, even in a purely logical debate.
Nice post there Everett. Nice to see Im not the only one who's
experienced first-hand the illogic of those who see their belief
system as incontrovertible fact.
> The rabid born-agains, fundamentalists, young people, and old people, to me at
> least, seem unsure of their own beliefs and therefore feel compelled to
> vigorously attack atheists and/or people with differing religious beliefs -
> as if they are trying to solve their own internal insecurity with religion
> in general.
The people that seem the least logical to me are people who are
absolutely certain that they've learned the entire truth and anyone
who doesnt agree with them is evil or inferior in some way. One thing
I'll say for the atheists though, even though some snicker in their
arrogance, at least they dont come knocking on your door to convert
you. Then again, I guess you could argue that at least the
born-agains care enough about their fellow man to try.
> Its a lame quote, but a good summary "God does not
> exist, only beings in various states of evolution".
As Crowley put it, "there is no god but man." I dont necessarily
agree, but I like the quote for its ability to throw people off for a
second--especially born-agains and atheists. Sorry for the OT posts.
Ill drop it.
Frater P.
@mbnet.fi John & Tarja Shakespeare
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
Individually, scientists are human and some become too attached to their own
creation, or develop an emotional (rather than logical or empirical) commitment
to a particular position. This can impede or delay - but not prevent - rejection
or replacement of established hypotheses when contrary evidence or a superior
hypothesis arises.
Arp and others were denied recognition at first, probably due to personal biases
by respected figures. However, their position was accepted and adopted as
mainstream thought soon enough. There are other cases where the originator did
not necessarily get full credit (FitzGerald vs Lorentz, for example), or received
credit posthumously or after decades/centuries (Caroline Herschel), but the state
of knowledge advanced nonetheless without too much delay.
Individual scientists can and sometimes do become ossified, but the broader
branches of scientific knowledge do not. Of course, a narrow specialty dominated
by a handfull of individuals can become _temporarily_ moribund, but will
generally recover within a decade or so.
Anon Ymous
Please pick up and read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
by Thomas Kuhn. I think he demonstrates quite clearly that science
doesnt necessarily advance the way you suggest. I'd argue that the
current paradigms are just as rigid and unchallengable (especially in
medicine and energy) as were those of the Catholic church/Aristotle
during the dark ages--in fact moreso.
Shasta
Peter Lemesurier
You incorrigible optimist, you! ;)
Planck suggested that it was more a matter of waiting for them to die!
--
Peter
@mbnet.fi John & Tarja Shakespeare
Peter Lemesurier wrote:
...and if they are established authorities, that's usually just a decade or
so :-)
In practice, waiting for them to retire from tenured sinecure is usually
enough.