How science works - How, Mr. Bobo?
Arne Langsetmo
In <01bc1a80$7c40f860$42da92cf@default> "Ronald Bobo"
<RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Edward Keyes <mist...@1stresource.com> wrote in article
><mistered-130...@korel.mit.edu>...
[major snip; I leave the details to Mr. Keyes. . .]
> I, too, must throw up my hands and say "gravitational
>radiation?" Since no one really knows exactly how gravity
>works (just as no one knows exactly how electricity works,
>although we can still use it), where does the idea of
>"gravitational radiation" come from?
>
> From your words, it seems that you are saying gravity
>is a push and not a pull.
>
>Ron
>
Mr. Bobo:
Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
do and do not know of these fields.
Modern science proceeds though the creation of theories that
accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
of observable phenomena in the natural world. Science does
not purport to explain _how_ things happen. A scientist
would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
electrodynamics."
Your insistence as to knowing _how_ gravity and electricity
works is reminiscent if the little child pestering his
mother: "_How_ did that apple fall, mommy? Did it fall
because the ground liked it, or do it fall because God
pushed it? How, mommy, _how_?" Even an explanation of
the Newtonian laws of gravity (which are a descriptive
theory, not a teleological one; in fact, this change
of paradigm from a teleological to a descriptive one is
one of the great achievements of the scientific renaissance
of this era) will not satisfy the child. If you would
like to go back to the "golden age" of Aristotelian
teleological "science", you are free to do so, but do not
insult the abilities and successes of present-day scientists,
who have made considerable strides since those times, and
have brought such wonders as the computer on which you are
reading this post.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
BTW: No one has even _suggested_ that gravity will "push"
rather than "pull", other than you. Let me see if I can
phrase this in a way you will understand:
1). Do electromagnetic quanta (photons) "radiate"?
2). Do photons mediate (e.g. electromagnetic) "attraction"?
3). Can gravitational quanta ("gravitons") also mediate "attraction"?
Robert Roosen
From an article in The New Yorker, 6 January, 1997 (page 38)
"The point is that Koestler began early on in his literary
career to seek a way to enshrine the principle that human life is
not to be trifled with, that no human life is a means to any other
end, that we cannot be relied on to do what is right if all we have
to work with is our pain or history or interest. This is precisely
the point he was pressing in his later work: that the
social-scientific quest for certainty, so characteristic of
nineteenth-century positivism, is pretentious, that it became
murderous in twentieth-century politics. We moderns, who have lost
"contact" with "a religion whose content is perennial but not
archaic," are inclined toward secular religions instead. Modern
writers must try to establish limits on the moral prestige of
science or we shall all become suckers for leaders who claim to
govern by its laws."
Arne Langsetmo (zu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <01bc1a80$7c40f860$42da92cf@default> "Ronald Bobo"
pete stapleton
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>I
>Mr. Bobo:
>Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
>not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
>do and do not know of these fields.
Pete Stapleton comments: Arne Langsetmo, you still haven't answered my post as
to which state bar attorney blair p. houton is registered?
Don't your find it difficult to defend scientists? They truly know so little
about how the real world works. It is considered a given in some trading
circles that if a scientist says something couldn't possible work - rush right
out and buy the stock.
>Modern science proceeds though the creation of theories that
>accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
>of observable phenomena in the natural world.
Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed through creation
theories - most of the time what they start with is what the grant wants - tax
trough science is all we have had in this country since the second world war.
Only now are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
As far a noting observable phenomena, moder astronomers haven't been able to
find even one astrological influence up in the sky within the entire 500 years
of their existence.
Science does
>not purport to explain _how_ things happen.
Pete Stapleton comments: you are certainly right here. science only tells us
what cannot happen because they KNOW it cannot happen. Velikovsky's
Catostrophic model of our solar systems history was visiously attacked by the
established astronomyers of the 1950's. However, now, Velikovksys catostrophic
model has all but replaced the steady state dogma everyone KNEW to be true at
the time. No, modern science doesn't use the scientific method to prove or
disprove anything. They use the Abel/Bok method --doctor the data and lie.
A scientist
>would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
>swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
>move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
>stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
>they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
>accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
>electrodynamics."
Pete Stapleton comments: a scientist won't say anything unless you pay him, or
he needs some grant money so he does a anti astrology press release. Or insists
there isn't any such thing as psychic reception.
P
Ronald Bobo
Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5e2s29$e...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <01bc1a80$7c40f860$42da92cf@default> "Ronald Bobo"
> <RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >Edward Keyes <mist...@1stresource.com> wrote in article
> ><mistered-130...@korel.mit.edu>...
>
> [major snip; I leave the details to Mr. Keyes. . .]
>
> > I, too, must throw up my hands and say "gravitational
> >radiation?" Since no one really knows exactly how gravity
> >works (just as no one knows exactly how electricity works,
> >although we can still use it), where does the idea of
> >"gravitational radiation" come from?
> >
> > From your words, it seems that you are saying gravity
> >is a push and not a pull.
> >
> >Ron
> >
>
> Mr. Bobo:
>
> Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
> not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
> do and do not know of these fields.
>
> Modern science proceeds though the creation of theories that
> accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
> of observable phenomena in the natural world.
"Accurately?"
> Science does
> not purport to explain _how_ things happen. A scientist
> would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
> swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
> move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
> stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
> they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
> accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
> electrodynamics."
>
> Your insistence as to knowing _how_ gravity and electricity
> works is reminiscent if the little child pestering his
> mother: "_How_ did that apple fall, mommy? Did it fall
> because the ground liked it, or do it fall because God
> pushed it? How, mommy, _how_?" Even an explanation of
> the Newtonian laws of gravity (which are a descriptive
> theory, not a teleological one; in fact, this change
> of paradigm from a teleological to a descriptive one is
> one of the great achievements of the scientific renaissance
> of this era) will not satisfy the child. If you would
> like to go back to the "golden age" of Aristotelian
> teleological "science", you are free to do so, but do not
> insult the abilities and successes of present-day scientists,
> who have made considerable strides since those times, and
> have brought such wonders as the computer on which you are
> reading this post.
Gee, Arne, you don't have to go all foamy-mouthed. A simple "We
don't know how ________ works", would suffice.
> BTW: No one has even _suggested_ that gravity will "push"
> rather than "pull", other than you. Let me see if I can
> phrase this in a way you will understand:
>
> 1). Do electromagnetic quanta (photons) "radiate"?
If something is "radiating", how can it be pulling something in the
opposite direction?
> 2). Do photons mediate (e.g. electromagnetic) "attraction"?
By "mediate", do you mean "to settle a dispute?"
> 3). Can gravitational quanta ("gravitons") also mediate "attraction"?
See 2).
Ron
yon lew
pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton) writes:
>zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>>I
>>Mr. Bobo:
>>Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
>>not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
>>do and do not know of these fields.
>Pete Stapleton comments: Arne Langsetmo, you still haven't answered my post as
>to which state bar attorney blair p. houton is registered?
>Don't your find it difficult to defend scientists? They truly know so little
>about how the real world works. It is considered a given in some trading
>circles that if a scientist says something couldn't possible work - rush right
>out and buy the stock.
>>Modern science proceeds though the creation of theories that
>>accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
>>of observable phenomena in the natural world.
>Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed through creation
>theories - most of the time what they start with is what the grant wants - tax
>trough science is all we have had in this country since the second world war.
>Only now are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
>As far a noting observable phenomena, moder astronomers haven't been able to
>find even one astrological influence up in the sky within the entire 500 years
>of their existence.
> Science does
>>not purport to explain _how_ things happen.
>Pete Stapleton comments: you are certainly right here. science only tells us
>what cannot happen because they KNOW it cannot happen. Velikovsky's
>Catostrophic model of our solar systems history was visiously attacked by the
>established astronomyers of the 1950's. However, now, Velikovksys catostrophic
>model has all but replaced the steady state dogma everyone KNEW to be true at
>the time. No, modern science doesn't use the scientific method to prove or
>disprove anything. They use the Abel/Bok method --doctor the data and lie.
> A scientist
>>would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
>>swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
>>move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
>>stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
>>they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
>>accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
>>electrodynamics."
>Pete Stapleton comments: a scientist won't say anything unless you pay him, or
>he needs some grant money so he does a anti astrology press release. Or insists
>there isn't any such thing as psychic reception.
>P
Well, there are good scientists and there are bad scientists, just as
there are good people and bad people. Bad scientists doctor evidance or
produce flawed research, and some do it fraudulently. But there are
still a lot of good scientists out there.
People are always talking about how impermanent the current state of
scientific knowledge is, how the theory that is in vogue today is thrown
out and replaced by something new tomorrow. But I see that as a
strength, not a weakness, of science; the ability to question not only
other's dogma but also your own. Don't forget, it wasn't the lay public
who forced the discarding of one theory in favor of another, it was other
scientists.
Secondly, anyone who knows anything about science knows that in science
there are no absolutes, only varying degrees of certainty. No one knows
anything for sure, and no one would admit to knowing anything for sure.
The trick is, no one today would be choosing a career as a physicist, or
a chemist, or a biologist, or whatever, if there were no questions left
to ask--questions not only about what we don't know but also about what
we think we know. If all the questions had been answered, if all the
mysteries had been explored and solved, then no one would choose a career
in something like physics. They'd just all become engineers.
Arne Langsetmo
In <01bc1b34$0b9e3be0$b9d992cf@default> "Ronald Bobo"
<RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>
>Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><5e2s29$e...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>> In <01bc1a80$7c40f860$42da92cf@default> "Ronald Bobo"
>> <RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >
>> >Edward Keyes <mist...@1stresource.com> wrote in article
>> ><mistered-130...@korel.mit.edu>...
>>
>> [major snip; I leave the details to Mr. Keyes. . .]
>>
>> > I, too, must throw up my hands and say "gravitational
>> >radiation?" Since no one really knows exactly how gravity
>> >works (just as no one knows exactly how electricity works,
>> >although we can still use it), where does the idea of
>> >"gravitational radiation" come from?
>> >
>> > From your words, it seems that you are saying gravity
>> >is a push and not a pull.
>> >
>> >Ron
>> >
>>
>>
>> Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
>> not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
>> do and do not know of these fields.
>>
>> accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
>> of observable phenomena in the natural world.
>
Look it up. It's in the dictionary.
Accuracy: The quality or state of being accurate.
Accurate: 2). Deviating only slightly or within acceptable
limits from a standard.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd. Edition)
In the case of scientific experimentation, we generally take
the "acceptable limits" to be within the margin of error of
our measuring equipment. If we find the answer to be outside
those limits, we reject the theory, while if the answer is
within these limits, we assume (provisionally) that the
theory is correct, and that the deviations are due to
measurement error. Should subsequent measurements with
more accurate equipment find that the deviation is outside
the new error of measurement, we would then reconsider our
initial acceptance.
If you insist that we, with imperfect measuring equipment,
are required to show absolutely _no_ deviation from the
predicted value, nothing we present to you will have any
evidentiary value at all. If that is your point, say it
and be done with it. We will then agree that we cannot meet
your impossible demands and that you, using these criteria,
will never "know" _anything_ about science, and thus,
that discussing science with you is a pointless exercise.
>> Science does
>> not purport to explain _how_ things happen. A scientist
>> would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
>> swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
>> move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
>> stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
>> they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
>> accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
>> electrodynamics."
>>
>> Your insistence as to knowing _how_ gravity and electricity
>> works is reminiscent if the little child pestering his
>> mother: "_How_ did that apple fall, mommy? Did it fall
>> because the ground liked it, or do it fall because God
>> pushed it? How, mommy, _how_?" Even an explanation of
>> the Newtonian laws of gravity (which are a descriptive
>> theory, not a teleological one; in fact, this change
>> of paradigm from a teleological to a descriptive one is
>> one of the great achievements of the scientific renaissance
>> of this era) will not satisfy the child. If you would
>> like to go back to the "golden age" of Aristotelian
>> teleological "science", you are free to do so, but do not
>> insult the abilities and successes of present-day scientists,
>> who have made considerable strides since those times, and
>> have brought such wonders as the computer on which you are
>> reading this post.
>
> Gee, Arne, you don't have to go all foamy-mouthed. A simple "We
>don't know how ________ works", would suffice.
You apparently don't understand _what_ I was saying. If
anything, it would seem that I have to do some more explication
of what approach to scientific explanation Aristotle took,
what approaches were taken by Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler,
and Newton, and why the abandonment of "first causes" in favor
of descriptive theories has proved so remarkably successful.
>> BTW: No one has even _suggested_ that gravity will "push"
>> rather than "pull", other than you. Let me see if I can
>> phrase this in a way you will understand:
>>
>> 1). Do electromagnetic quanta (photons) "radiate"?
>
> If something is "radiating", how can it be pulling
>something in the opposite direction?
The "radiation" equations predict such a force. But answer
the question I posed, not _your_ original question.
>> 2). Do photons mediate (e.g. electromagnetic) "attraction"?
>
> By "mediate", do you mean "to settle a dispute?"
OK. Does an "exchange of photons" theory (such as quantum
electrodynamics) predict such attractive force? I was hoping
I didn't have to dip too deep into the common vernacular.
>> 3). Can gravitational quanta ("gravitons") also mediate
"attraction"?
>
> See 2).
Same answer. Substitute gravitational quanta for electromagnetic
quanta.
>
>Ron
>
Also, please read Mr. Keyes' excellent non-quantum-gravity
explication of this same question.
It almost sounds as if you believe that the quantum
theory is wrong. Perhaps you can let us know what you
prefer as an alternative theory. Then we can compare the
predictive (descriptive) power of your theory with that
of the quantum theory when applied to specific observed
phenomena, and see which is more useful. If you have
no such alternative theory, then we will take that at
face value, and say that you can make no predictions
based on theory whatsoever. This is not to say that you
cannot make any predictions, rather it is to say that
any predictions you make are worthless in terms of
validating any theory of science.
And that is what we are trying to do here: Evaluate
the validity of scientific theories. Should you choose
to put forth a theory of astrology (for example, in
response to my question above, we can look at it.
Otherwise, we will conclude that it is not scientific.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
In <5e3sr6$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net> pet...@c-zone.net (pete
>
>>Your admitted ignorance of gravity and electromagnetic does
>>not qualify you as an authority to comment on what scientists
>>do and do not know of these fields.
>
[snip plaintive request for information that's no business of mine]
>
>Don't your find it difficult to defend scientists? They truly
>know so little about how the real world works. It is considered
>a given in some trading circles that if a scientist says something
>couldn't possible work - rush right out and buy the stock.
Let me know which trading circles these are. It may be useful
to have this information. ;-)
>
>>Modern science proceeds though the creation of theories that
>>accurately _describe_ ("predict", if you will) the behavior
>>of observable phenomena in the natural world.
>
>Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed
>through creation theories - most of the time what they start
>with is what the grant wants - tax trough science is all we
>have had in this country since the second world war. Only now
>are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
Perhaps you prefer science for free? Also, I thought that
"creation" theories were the province of the ICR. . .
Seriously, now, having helped in grant aplications, I can
tell you that the _scientists_ write the grant applications,
and thus, control the agenda. But I said "proceeds". I
did not say "starts". The creation of a theory may be
subsequent to the collection of data (and the awarding of a
grant). And _all_ of this was immaterial to my comment.
I _am_ curious as to how _you_ know so much about how science
works. What are _your_ bona fines?
>As far a noting observable phenomena, moder astronomers
>haven't been able to find even one astrological influence
>up in the sky within the entire 500 years of their existence.
Does _that_ give you a clue?
>> . . . Science does
>>not purport to explain _how_ things happen.
>
>Pete Stapleton comments: you are certainly right here. science
>only tells us what cannot happen because they KNOW it cannot
>happen. . .
Huh? An example please? And this is an evasion of my main
point (neatly snipped out by you so that you wouldn't have
to answer it). You _really_ don't understand what I said,
do you?
> . . . Velikovsky's Catostrophic model of our solar systems
>history was visiously attacked by the established astronomyers
>of the 1950's. However, now, Velikovksys catostrophic model
>has all but replaced the steady state dogma everyone KNEW to
>be true at the time. . .
Velikovsky's theories are still dead as a doornail. It was
not Velikovsky with his armchair and scribblings, but the
concerted efforts of Dr. Luis Alvarez in obtaining data on
iridium concentrations from around the world, and putting
this data together into a theory that could be tested (by
looking for the glassy fragment debris of impacts, and
candidate impactcraters) that has changed the views of
climatologists and paleontologists concerning the causes
of the Cretaceous extinctions. Velikovsky's theories are
fundamentally incompatible with the actual best current
knowledge of the Earth's early history.
> . . . No, modern science doesn't use the
>scientific method to prove or disprove anything. They use
>the Abel/Bok method --doctor the data and lie.
This is almost completely false; nothing but the scurrilous
accusations of a persom who has so far shown but a dim
understanding of even the rudiments of scientific
knowledge, much less any ability to evaluate the methods
of science or the validity of any scientific theory.
There may be examples of individual scientists who _have_
doctored data and lied, but they are usually quicky found
out. In fact, that you can cite some such people is
evidence that the scientific process weeds out such
shenanigans.
>> . . . A scientist
>>would not say "a photon moves from one place to anther by
>>swimming through the ether" nor would they say "photons
>>move because God gives them a little push, and they don't
>>stop because they are inclined towards moving." Instead,
>>they would say: "This photon's behavior is _described_
>>accurately (and completely) by the equations of quantum
>>electrodynamics."
>
>Pete Stapleton comments: a scientist won't say anything
>unless you pay him, or he needs some grant money so he
>does a anti astrology press release. Or insists there
>isn't any such thing as psychic reception.
I guess that you feel compelled to libel any scientist that
will not say what you want them to say, or that disparages
your pet beliefs. Do you think that this is a better way
for science to proceed?
But once again, your comments were completely beside the
point that I was making. Do you know the difference
between arguing from first causes, and descriptive theories?
Have you read any history of science? Tell me, how
did Aristotle explain a falling object? And how did
Newton? If you can't discuss the points I made, why
do you bother to reply?
>
>P
>
Enough of this tripe. What do you have to offer in the
stead of smodern science that has been nearly as successful
in advancing human knowledge?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
William Barwell
In article <5e893h$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
>zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>
>>I
>>I _am_ curious as to how _you_ know so much about how science
>>works. What are _your_ bona fines?
>
>What difference do my "bonifides" make when I label myself as a
>Professional Astrologer.
If you ask for bonifides to coment on science, you are going to be asked
for yours. Astrologer is a clue you have none and little understanding of
science, else you wouldn't be a loser astrologer.
In alt.astrology, it seems you are arguing about your past criminal
record and claiming to be a "white magician".
From your posts in sci.skeptic, it is obvious, you are bone, stone, stick
ignorant of science, especially physics.
Being an astrologer and 'white magician' obviously does not make one fit
to discuss real things like physics.
It would take two years to educate you to the point you could see how
ignorant you are so we could have the satisfaction of telling you just how
blazingly ignorant you really are, so you would understand just how
ignorant you are about physics and be properly ashamed of your bountiful
ignorance.
Bugger off, Astro-boy. Argue with your police-record inspecting buddies
in alt.astrology and leave science to those who have something to say
about it worth reading.
********* tripe deleted **********
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <5e89bq$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
>>not Velikovsky with his armchair and scribblings, but the
>
>thinking class.
********* tripe deleted **********
Veliskovsky is pseudoscience of the worst sort.
If you want to find a work that is filled 100% with stupid errors, read
any Velikovsky book.
The man wasn't right about anything.
davidson
Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:25:14 GMT, in sci.skeptic, pet...@c-zone.net
> (pete stapleton) wrote:
>
> >zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
> >
> >>In
> >>>Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed
> >>>through creation theories - most of the time what they start
> >>>with is what the grant wants - tax trough science is all we
> >>>have had in this country since the second world war. Only now
> >>>are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
> >
> >>Perhaps you prefer science for free? Also, I thought that
> >>"creation" theories were the province of the ICR. .
> >
> >Why should the fantasy concepts of the astrologers get paid for by tax money.
> >Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it.
>
> "...fantasy concepts of astrologers..."; "...mythology..."
>
> Thanks for the admission.
>
> <snip>
>
> (Note followups, if any)
>
> Bob C.
>
> Reply to casanova @ crosslink.net (without the spaces, of course)
>
> "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
> the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Modern science is dead. It reached its peak during the 20's and 30's
during the Solvay Conference when the who's who(m) of Nobel Prize
winners convened:
Scientist: Origin: Nobel Prize date:
Bohr Dutch 1922
Born German 1954
Bragg English 1915
Compton American 1927
Curie Polish 1903,1911
Debye Dutch 1936
DeBroglie French 1929
Dirac English 1933
Einstein German 1921
Heisenberg German 1932
Langmeir American 1932
Lorentz Dutch 1902
Pauli Austrian 1945
Planck German 1918
Richardson English 1928
Schroedinger Austrian 1933
Wilson Scottish 1927
We live in the day of "I'm OK, You're OK, What's Happenin' Now?"
science. Idiots
like Carl Sagan take the spotlight "captivating" their ignorant
audiences with the latest and greatest astronomic revelations
(ultimately ending up as book-ends, word-sparse "reading" material for
the coffee tables of America's burgeoning functionally iliterate
population.)
I used to respect Hawking. Now he's the poster-boy for an modem
commercial. What a pathetic requiem for a physicist. Geeee, I wonder
if he could palm a basketball with a joystick? Maybe do some Reebok
commercials preaching how they last forever in a computer-generated
voice.
pete stapleton
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>In
>>Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed
>>through creation theories - most of the time what they start
>>with is what the grant wants - tax trough science is all we
>>have had in this country since the second world war. Only now
>>are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
>Perhaps you prefer science for free? Also, I thought that
>"creation" theories were the province of the ICR. .
Pete Stapleton comments: you demand it of astrologers. And they do it for free.
Why should the fantasy concepts of the astrologers get paid for by tax money.
Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it. That is
exactly what happens in astrology. The people pay for what they get. And it is
a billion dollar a year industry. While astronomers produce nothing the people
will pay for - and then deny responsiblity for sending a $100,000,000 telescope
that couldnt' see into orbit.
So yes, go to the people for you mony - go private, and see how long this tax
welfare rip off called modern astronomy would last.
..
>
pete stapleton
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>Velikovsky's theories are still dead as a doornail. It was
>not Velikovsky with his armchair and scribblings, but the
>concerted efforts of Dr. Luis Alvarez in obtaining data on
>iridium concentrations from around the world, and putting
>this data together into a theory that could be tested (by
>looking for the glassy fragment debris of impacts, and
>candidate impactcraters) that has changed the views of
>climatologists and paleontologists concerning the causes
>of the Cretaceous extinctions. Velikovsky's theories are
>fundamentally incompatible with the actual best current
>knowledge of the Earth's early history.
Pete Stapleton comments: Arne, this time the smoke you blow is in the wishful
thinking class. Since Velikovsky published his book in 1950 which completely
demolished the "steady state" dogma of the astronomer priests of that time -
astromers and science has been totally on the ropes. The ony thing new in the
fields realting to what's actually up in the sky and it's history, is the lack
of credit Velikovsky gets every time one of your "scientists" steals another one
of his proven postulates.
blow more smoke now Arne,
Pete
pete stapleton
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>I
>I _am_ curious as to how _you_ know so much about how science
>works. What are _your_ bona fines?
Pete Stapleton comments: Arne, you are blowing smoke again.
What difference do my "bonifides" make when I label myself as a
Professional Astrologer. You 'KNOW' that astrology is a magical belief - this
is true since your master said so in 1976. You remember the widly published
manifesto signed by a whole bunch of guys who called themselves "concernred
scientists." you remember - and then it came out that not one of them could
cast a horoscope. You do remember that don't you Arne? You do remember this
great monument to the scientific method in action - showing that the opinons of
all great scientists are always based upon pure science research.
Now blow some more smoke Arne.
Pete
pete stapleton
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>In the case of scientific experimentation, we generally take
>the "acceptable limits" to be within the margin of error of
>our measuring equipment. If we find the answer to be outside
>those limits, we reject the theory, while if the answer is
>within these limits, we assume (provisionally) that the
>theory is correct, and that the deviations are due to
>measurement error. Should subsequent measurements with
>more accurate equipment find that the deviation is outside
>the new error of measurement, we would then reconsider our
>initial acceptance.
Pete Stapleton comments: then why did two of your most able "scientists" find it
necessary to doctor the data to arrive at their foregone conclusion. YOu do
remember the Able/Bok apology in this are I'm sure - and of course nothing like
this has ever happened before - right?
>And that is what we are trying to do here: Evaluate
>the validity of scientific theories. Should you choose
>to put forth a theory of astrology (for example, in
>response to my question above, we can look at it.
>Otherwise, we will conclude that it is not scientific. >Cheers,
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Pete Stapleton comments: No, with astrology you do something a little different
than doctor data to make it fit what you must find. In astrology you define
what astrology has to be - then you say you measure what you have defined, and
then post that it doesn't work according to your provend scientific methods.
The crime is about the same. Except, no one pays any attention to you. which
then brings up to the famous manifesto which was widely published by 186
concerend scientiist which made the point that the collective scientific
knowledge of the group was that astrology had to be a magical belief.
Now think of all the great amount of scientific research that stood behind the
collective scientific knowledge presented to the public when it was learned that
not one of the entire 186 concerned scientists could cast a horoscope.
Now Arne, blow some more smoke.
Pete
Arne Langsetmo
In <5e89bq$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net> pet...@c-zone.net (pete
stapleton) writes:
>
>zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Velikovsky's theories are still dead as a doornail. It was
>>not Velikovsky with his armchair and scribblings, but the
>>concerted efforts of Dr. Luis Alvarez in obtaining data on
>>iridium concentrations from around the world, and putting
>>this data together into a theory that could be tested (by
>>looking for the glassy fragment debris of impacts, and
>>candidate impactcraters) that has changed the views of
>>climatologists and paleontologists concerning the causes
>>of the Cretaceous extinctions. Velikovsky's theories are
>>fundamentally incompatible with the actual best current
>>knowledge of the Earth's early history.
>
>blow is in the wishful thinking class. Since Velikovsky
>published his book in 1950 which completely demolished
>the "steady state" dogma of the astronomer priests of
>that time - astromers and science has been totally on
>the ropes. The ony thing new in the fields realting to
>what's actually up in the sky and it's history, is the
>lack of credit Velikovsky gets every time one of your
>"scientists" steals another one of his proven postulates.
>
>blow more smoke now Arne,
>
>Pete
>
Proven postulates? Like what? That the earth has a near
hit with another earth-sized mass? If Velikovski were
to sue for expropriation of his ideas and acually win,
he would probably get exactly the same damages that
one "psychic" recovered from Mr. Randi in his libel
action for being called a "convicted child molester"
when he was only a confessed child molester.
Whether astronomy and science have been on the ropes since
the 1950s is a proposition I will disagree with you on.
I will leave it to the other readers of this NG to make
up their own minds as well as to whether this is true.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
In <5e893h$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net> pet...@c-zone.net (pete
>>works. What are _your_ bona fines?
Sorry about the typo. Should have been "bona fides".
>Pete Stapleton comments: Arne, you are blowing smoke again.
>What difference do my "bonifides" make when I label myself
>as a Professional Astrologer. You 'KNOW' that astrology
>is a magical belief - this is true since your master said
>so in 1976. You remember the widly published manifesto
>signed by a whole bunch of guys who called themselves
>"concernred scientists." you remember - and then it came
>out that not one of them could cast a horoscope. You do
>remember that don't you Arne? You do remember this great
>monument to the scientific method in action - showing that
>the opinons of all great scientists are always based upon
>pure science research.
Just wanted to know what scientific training you had.
I can label myself "Grand Poobah", and may very well
assume this actual position soon with a company I have
consulted for, but that doesn't mean very much.
I call no man my master. And I am a little fuzzy on the
"widly published manifesto" of 1976. It kind of rings
a bell. I may have heard of it, but I am not real familiar
with what it said. Can you give me a reference? I'd
like to read it. Thanks.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Bob Casanova
>zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>
>>In
>>>Pete Stapleton comments: no, modern science does not proceed
>>>through creation theories - most of the time what they start
>>>with is what the grant wants - tax trough science is all we
>>>have had in this country since the second world war. Only now
>>>are we starting to get away from this science for hire bs.
>
>>Perhaps you prefer science for free? Also, I thought that
>>"creation" theories were the province of the ICR. .
>
>Pete Stapleton comments: you demand it of astrologers. And they do it for free.
>Why should the fantasy concepts of the astrologers get paid for by tax money.
>Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it.
"...fantasy concepts of astrologers..."; "...mythology..."
William Barwell
In article <5e88pg$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
>Why should the fantasy concepts of the astrologers get paid for by tax money.
Ain't no fantasies, it's the real thing.
For those who wonder, "How did we get here? How did this all happen?",
astronomy has given us some answers. Not all of 'em.
Yet. But they are working hard on this.
Astrology hasn't given us jack-shit, excpet feeble minded sophistry and
more unneccesary bigotry. "Cancers are untriustworthy".
Yeah sure. Also false.
Astronomy is giving us real answers to soem of the most basic questions we
can ask. Astrology gives us nothing, and boy does it cause envy
amongst the small minded babbling astrologers to have to admit this.
So they won't.
>Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it. That is
>exactly what happens in astrology. The people pay for what they get. And it is
>a billion dollar a year industry.
It is a drop in the basket compared to idiot TV evangelists,
cheesy diet plans, XXX rtaed videos and other similar things.
Actually, the XXX rated videos are probably better value
for the money than astrology anyway.
While astronomers produce nothing the people
>will pay for - and then deny responsiblity for sending a $100,000,000 telescope
>that couldnt' see into orbit.
Far more people than you want to imagine, find astronomers,
astrophysicists, and cosmologists fascinating and needed
and neccesary. Probably though, more people would rather have
more tractor pulls, guns shows and fishing than either more astronomy or
more astrology. What's popular isn't neccesarily what's good and useful.
I am sure more people believe astrology is a plot by Satan himsef,
denounced by the word of God, the Bible, than those who care
about astrology. You all deserve each other.
>
>So yes, go to the people for you mony - go private, and see how long this tax
>welfare rip off called modern astronomy would last.
>..
Jealous little astro-boy? Astronomy will always get money from
governments and astrology will always be viewed as charlatanism,
not worth a handful of dirty floor sweepings. The Bible thumpers
alone would prevent you from getting a penny of tax money.
Now, answer some of the good questions everybody has asked you about your
inane astrology crap you posted here.
Brian Johnson
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <5e88pg$h...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
> >zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
> >
> >
> >Pete Stapleton comments: you demand it of astrologers. And they do it for free.
> >Why should the fantasy concepts of the astrologers get paid for by tax money.
>
> Ain't no fantasies, it's the real thing.
> For those who wonder, "How did we get here? How did this all happen?",
> astronomy has given us some answers. Not all of 'em.
> Yet. But they are working hard on this.
> Astrology hasn't given us jack-shit, excpet feeble minded sophistry and
> more unneccesary bigotry. "Cancers are untriustworthy".
> Yeah sure. Also false.
So blame the sun if you get burned, eh?
>
> Astronomy is giving us real answers to soem of the most basic questions we
> can ask. Astrology gives us nothing, and boy does it cause envy
> amongst the small minded babbling astrologers to have to admit this.
> So they won't.
Us and them talk huh. You're pretty enlightened sherlock.
>
> >Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it. That is
> >exactly what happens in astrology. The people pay for what they get. And it is
> >a billion dollar a year industry.
Apparently you have some interest in astrology if you're going to all
this grief of posting your thoughts. Some...unresolved issue.
<scratching goatee>
>
> It is a drop in the basket compared to idiot TV evangelists,
> cheesy diet plans, XXX rtaed videos and other similar things.
> Actually, the XXX rated videos are probably better value
> for the money than astrology anyway.
> I'm sure you are an expert on these American concerns.>
While astronomers produce nothing the people
> >will pay for - and then deny responsiblity for sending a $100,000,000 telescope
> >that couldnt' see into orbit.
What?
>
> Far more people than you want to imagine, find astronomers,
> astrophysicists, and cosmologists fascinating and needed
> and neccesary. Probably though, more people would rather have
> more tractor pulls, guns shows and fishing than either more astronomy or
> more astrology. What's popular isn't neccesarily what's good and useful.
> I am sure more people believe astrology is a plot by Satan himsef,
> denounced by the word of God, the Bible, than those who care
> about astrology. You all deserve each other.
> ... and you deserve yourself.>
>
> >So yes, go to the people for you mony - go private, and see how long this tax
> >welfare rip off called modern astronomy would last.
> >..
>
> Jealous little astro-boy? Astronomy will always get money from
> governments and astrology will always be viewed as charlatanism,
> not worth a handful of dirty floor sweepings. The Bible thumpers
> alone would prevent you from getting a penny of tax money.
>
> Now, answer some of the good questions everybody has asked you about your
> inane astrology crap you posted here.
>
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
William Barwell
In article <330E1D...@erols.com>, Brian Johnson <as...@erols.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
****************** Deleted ******************
>> Ain't no fantasies, it's
the real thing.
>> For those who wonder, "How did we get here? How did this all happen?",
>> astronomy has given us some answers. Not all of 'em.
>> Yet. But they are working hard on this.
>> Astrology hasn't given us jack-shit, excpet feeble minded sophistry and
>> Yeah sure. Also false.
>
>So blame the sun if you get burned, eh?
>>
No, blaming idiot astrologers for making up false claims
that include ugly little broadbrush bigotries that they
cannot prove as their idiocy is false and untrue.
As 'em for evidence to support these claims ... and you get nothing.
Frauds, fakes, unneeded and intolerable broad-brushed bigotries.
Why allow asshole-ologers to spew such bigotries without challenge?
Astrology is an intellectual fraud with NOTHING to show for
hard evidence for any of it's claims.
>> Astronomy is giving us real answers to some of the most basic questions
we
>> can ask. Astrology gives us nothing, and boy does it cause envy
>> amongst the small minded babbling astrologers to have to admit this.
>> So they won't.
>
>Us and them talk huh. You're pretty enlightened sherlock.
Yup. I don't believe astrology. Once again, ask astrologers to prove any
of their claims by ofering the world hard evidence. You get .... nothing.
Nothing but monkey jabber.
Jillions of differing systems, Chinese, Vedic, Western astrology,
differing systems of 'houses', some us 7 planets, some 9, soem us larger
moons and asteroids, some correct for processions of teh equinoxes, many
dont.
All different, no evidence offered ever by ANY astrologer to show THIER
favorite system has been shown with hard evidence to be THE ONE real
working system.
Monkey chatter is all you get when you ask an astrologer to show hard
evidence to prove anything specific at all.
Can you point to any systematic collection of hard evidence that can
withstand scrutiny that Astrologers of any sort can confidently set before
science or critics at large that would withstand scrutiny?
No?
>> >Let the people who believe in that kind of mythology pay for it. That is
>> >exactly what happens in astrology. The people pay for what they get. And it is
>> >a billion dollar a year industry.
>
>Apparently you have some interest in astrology if you're going to all
>this grief of posting your thoughts. Some...unresolved issue.
><scratching goatee>
I am interested in getting astrologers and astrology buffs to see teh
errors of their ways and to stop labelling people with with imputations of
this or that sort of behavior without hard evidence.
If teh Peter Stapelton's of teh world are going to claim somebody born
under teh sign of Cancer is untrustworthy, without hard evidence, this is
just an unjustified bigotry. No better than racism.
"Cancers are untrustworthy. Niggers are Lazy.
Mexicans are Stupid."
No, we have too much of this ugly uncalled for bigotry in this
world without asshole astrologers adding your birthdate to the list
of unwarranted reasons for discriminating against somebody on an unfair
characterization.
Especially when if you ask for hard evidence to show there is anything to
astrology, you will not get any answer. Because there is none.
And then these asshole-ologers, have the nerve to sneer at astronomers
ads the miserable Peter Stapelton did.
>>
>> It is a drop in the basket compared to idiot TV evangelists,
>> cheesy diet plans, XXX rated videos and other similar things.
>> Actually, the XXX rated videos are probably better value
>> for the money than astrology anyway.
>> I'm sure you are an expert on these American concerns.>
>
> While astronomers produce nothing the people
>> >will pay for - and then deny responsiblity for sending a $100,000,000 telescope
>> >that couldnt' see into orbit.
>
>What?
>>
Ask Stapelton. He wrote that.
And of course it was the manufactors of the instruments, not that
astronomers who made the screw up.
He couldn't even get that right.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
William Barwell wrote some good arguments about astrology, which got the
following response (all of the Barwell's quotes snipped, but ALL of the
response included):
In article <330E1D...@erols.com>, as...@erols.com says...
>So blame the sun if you get burned, eh?
>Us and them talk huh. You're pretty enlightened sherlock.
>Apparently you have some interest in astrology if you're going to all
>this grief of posting your thoughts. Some...unresolved issue.
><scratching goatee>
>What?
That was all that the poster posted as a response.
None of this answered William's concerns, it just makes the pro-astrology
side look like they are engaged in some form of distraction.
I'm willing to be open minded to evidence about astrology, but if this is the
best you can do in response to some hard edged questions about it, well, it
isn't very persuasive. And Pisces like me are supposed to be more likely to
believe ;)
cheers, scott
William Barwell
In article <5elca7$1s...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote some good arguments about astrology, which got the
>following response (all of the Barwell's quotes snipped, but ALL of the
>response included):
>
>In article <330E1D...@erols.com>, as...@erols.com says...
>
>
>
>>this grief of posting your thoughts. Some...unresolved issue.
>><scratching goatee>
>
>
>That was all that the poster posted as a response.
>
>None of this answered William's concerns, it just makes the pro-astrology
>side look like they are engaged in some form of distraction.
>
>I'm willing to be open minded to evidence about astrology, but if this is the
>best you can do in response to some hard edged questions about it, well, it
>isn't very persuasive. And Pisces like me are supposed to be more likely to
>believe ;)
A few astrologers, Choisnard and Krafft tried to develop statistiacl proof
for evidence that astrology works, and failed. Gauquelin tried to with
the Mars effect and Jupiter effect but failed. Basically, it's too much
work for astrologers. It's more fun to make assertions and not worry
about such things like evidence.
In this month's new Skeptical Inquirer, which I just recieved today,
a new book "Astrology Really Works!" by the Magi Society, throws out
all old astrology explaining "astrologers and others have made many failed
attempts to prove astrology works".
They make up a new system that of course, they fail to show any evidence
for. They make some challenges to skeptics that prove to be sneaky
not really honest challenges, which the reviewer of this book, Geoffrey
Dean roundly debunks.
They state that their system has been subjected to "rigorous statistical
tests", details being omitted "because they are beyond the interest level
of many of our readers".
Imagine that.
Even worse, we are told that their book does not even adequately describe
their new system so we will have to wait for their further books.
So one can't even take their own snotty challenges if one so desires.
Such is the state of modern astrology.
Critics of astrology will also be interested to know another critical book
is being released by Prometheus book.
Astrology: What's Really in the stars?
By J.V. Stewrat, M.D. Half of this book apparently gives astrology a
thorough examination of the lack of proof for astrology's basic claims.
"The Verdict? The overwhelming amountv of evidencer indicates that
horoscope astrology exhibits random or chance behavior."
The only people who seem to ever really examine astrologer's
statistical evidence is skeptics who come away with no
evidence to show for astrology's cause.
Ng Wang Feng
Dear readers,
I am doing research for a sociology assignment and need
some info from anyone who cares to respond. Thank you very much and your
identities will be kept confidential. I promise to deal with the gathered
info with disgression and honesty.
1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
2. If you are a member: How did you come to be a member?
What was it that attracted you?
If you are not a member: Why have you chosen not to be affiliated?
3. Has your faith or fervour ever flickered a little or has it become
stronger with more life experience?
4. Have you ever thought of converting?
If yes, to what and why?
If no, what do you think of those who convert?
5. Do you consider astrology a religion?
Why?
6. What are your views on the new religious movements (New Age Gps
included)? Raise egs pls.
7. What are your views with regards to reincarnation? Pls elaborate.
8. List your age gp:
A: below 14
B: 15-21
C: 22-28
D: 29-35
E: 36-42
F: 43-49
G: above 49
Thanks again.
Yours,
Ng W.F.
Edmond Wollmann
Ng Wang Feng wrote:
> Dear readers,
> I am doing research for a sociology assignment and need
> some info from anyone who cares to respond. Thank you very much and your
> identities will be kept confidential. I promise to deal with the gathered
> info with disgression and honesty.
> 1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
No
> 2. If you are a member: How did you come to be a member?
> What was it that attracted you?
Not
> If you are not a member: Why have you chosen not to be affiliated?
There is no one truth.
> 3. Has your faith or fervour ever flickered a little or has it become
> stronger with more life experience?
It is only human nature that doubts will enter consciousness, we grow
and learn and trust as we grow- it is really a given that there must be
a purpose for living-therefore it is DOUBT that is the unnatural state
and trust the natural. There is a difference between denial of reality
and trust through knowingness-this must be determined before a true
answer can come as to faith.
> 4. Have you ever thought of converting?
Converting to what? One truth? Why? So I can denounce all others? This
is egoistic. And is the reason for all pain and suffering on the
planet-separation and resistance to growth.
> If yes, to what and why?
The recognition that "All That Is" is simply, all that is.
> If no, what do you think of those who convert?
Self judging in the search for "one truth" that will "save" them from
their own reality creations.
> 5. Do you consider astrology a religion?
> Why?
If you think of it in terms of the real meaning-i.e., to "link back" to
spiritual source-then ANYTHING can be a religion that allows you to do
this-including watching a bug crawl across the floor. If you mean it as
the habitual ritual- science of following-no. Religion as it is
practiced today is the science of following like politics, wherein the
followers give their power to the "leader" as if the "leader" has some
special insight, connection or access to "All That Is" more than the
"followers"-hence they are always disillusioned in the performance of
the "leader" because the leader has no special line to the creator that
all others do not themselves possess.
> 6. What are your views on the new religious movements (New Age Gps
> included)? Raise egs pls.
Everything that happens is for a reason either collectively or
personally-if it works for you-use it, if it does not-don't.
> 7. What are your views with regards to reincarnation? Pls elaborate.
We are many selves that are "happening" all at once so to speak because
there is really no such thing as time except when you choose to
participate in it as we obviously have. They all "radiate" out from the
now INFINITELY in other times, places, planets, selves-for "All That Is"
is all that is and we are all the different ways that "it" has of
expressing itself within the creation that it is-everywhere-all at once.
We ARE our brother-not just his keeper.
> 8. List your age gp:
E: 36-42
> Thanks again.
> Yours,
> Ng W.F.
--
"Too many mountains, and not enough stairs to climb, too many churches,
and not enough truth, too many people, and not enough eyes to see, too
many lives to lead and not enough time, its too late she's gone too far,
she's lost the Sun!" The Guess Who "She's Come Undone"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Ng Wang Feng
Dear readers,
I am doing research for a sociology assignment and need
some info from anyone who cares to respond. Thank you very much and your
identities will be kept confidential. I promise to deal with the gathered
info with disgression and honesty.
1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
What was it that attracted you?
stronger with more life experience?
Why?
included)? Raise egs pls.
B: 15-21
C: 22-28
D: 29-35
E: 36-42
F: 43-49
G: above 49
Jaffo
In alt.religion.kibology, on Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:26:51 +0800, Ng Wang Feng
wrote:
: 1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
Yes. I am a Kibologist. What time is it?
: 2. If you are a member: How did you come to be a member?
I first saw Alt Religion Kibology in the net.legends faq. I was goofing off
at work and found a site with all these faqs on it. I downloaded this one and
was captivated. It changed my life.
: What was it that attracted you?
I wanted to make fun of people and meet chyks.
: If you are not a member: Why have you chosen not to be affiliated?
I am allergic to hypocrisy.
: 3. Has your faith or fervour ever flickered a little or has it become
: stronger with more life experience?
It has become stronger since one of these Kibology chyks kidnapped me, took me
to her house, and had lots of sex with me.
: 4. Have you ever thought of converting?
Yes.
: If yes, to what and why?
I have thought of converting to 220 Volts. 110 just doesn't "do me" like it
used to.
: If no, what do you think of those who convert?
They are part of a grand alien plot that involves planting microchips in our
heads when we fall asleep in public school.
: 5. Do you consider astrology a religion?
No.
: Why?
Chyks will not take you home and have sex with you if you convert to
astrology. Thus, it is not a true religion.
: 6. What are your views on the new religious movements (New Age Gps
: included)? Raise egs pls.
I have never heard of the New Age Global Positioning System or the "Eggs
Please!" religion. The first one seems like a practical choice if you like to
fish, but the other one would probably contain too much cholestoral.
: 7. What are your views with regards to reincarnation? Pls elaborate.
If I have been here before, someone has taken all my stuff.
: 8. List your age gp:
: A: below 14
: B: 15-21
: C: 22-28
: D: 29-35
: E: 36-42
: F: 43-49
: G: above 49
H: All of the above
: Thanks again.
Any time!
: Yours,
: Ng W.F.
In return for your gracious survey, I would like to give you a gift.
Here's are some vowels for you:
A E I O U
You can borrow my Y, but I want it back.
Jaffo
Aged 9, 12, 14, 18, 26, 32, 45, and 90
--
"We can't afford to shop at any store that has a philosophy.
We just need a TV." - Marge Simpson
Lupus Yonderboy
Thus spake ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo):
>Ng Wang Feng wrote:
>: 1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
>Yes. I am a Kibologist. What time is it?
It's time to bust a rhyme.
>: 2. If you are a member: How did you come to be a member?
>
>I first saw Alt Religion Kibology in the net.legends faq. I was goofing off
>at work and found a site with all these faqs on it. I downloaded this one and
>was captivated. It changed my life.
I was invited by Kibo. I was goofing off at school when I found a post of
his with all these words on it. I responded and got e-mail from Him. I was
then held captive. It changed my shoe size.
>: What was it that attracted you?
>I wanted to make fun of people and meet chyks.
SUBSCIRBE!
>It has become stronger since one of these Kibology chyks kidnapped me, took me
>to her house, and had lots of sex with me.
YAY! This worked for me too, except I had to kidnap myself. The
only thing better than sex is LOTS OF SEX. Trust me. The Truth
is in there. Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to
me Jaffo.
>In return for your gracious survey, I would like to give you a gift.
>Here's are some vowels for you:
>A E I O U
DAMMIT! How are we going to alleviate the severe vowel shortage
in Poland if you keep wasting them like this. Thnk Glbl, act lcl!
--
Alex Suter
asu...@cs.stanford.edu
"God bless those pagans."
Teg Pipes
Ng Wang Feng <art6...@leonis.nus.sg> writes:
> Dear readers,
> I am doing research for a sociology assignment and need
> some info from anyone who cares to respond. Thank you very much and your
Oh, boy. Hey, could she be trolling us?
> identities will be kept confidential. I promise to deal with the gathered
> info with disgression and honesty.
^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS NEWSGROUP FILLS ME WITH DISGREST!
>
> 1. Are you a member of any religious organization? for how long?
Yes, I am a member of a crackpot virtual religion. We worship Bob Hope.
Long May He Shine.
...
> 3. Has your faith or fervour ever flickered a little or has it become
> stronger with more life experience?
My 'faith' was definitely flickering a few weeks ago. _The Best of
ARK 1996_ had just been published and noone was posting. With the help
of my personal psychic, Gard Trask III, I returned to the fold.
>
> 4. Have you ever thought of converting?
> If yes, to what and why?
> If no, what do you think of those who convert?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Most of them are lame for about a year, including myself. Then they
pick up on the inside jokes and they are quickly and happily
accepted into welcome datacomp the group, making fun of jayoel furr
with the best of us!
> 8. List your age gp:
> A: below 14
> B: 15-21
> C: 22-28
> D: 29-35
> E: 36-42
> F: 43-49
> G: above 49
>
> Thanks again.
> Yours,
> Ng W.F.
love,
Teg Pipes, category "A"
Mary L. Urquhart
Ng Wang Feng <art6...@leonis.nus.sg> wrote:
> Dear readers,
> I am doing research for a sociology assignment and need
> some info from anyone who cares to respond. Thank you very much and your
> info with disgression and honesty.
>
> 2. If you are a member: How did you come to be a member?
> If you are not a member: Why have you chosen not to be affiliated?
time or another in my search for answers/knowledge. I'm "between"
groups at the moment, thinking over what I have learned and how it
"feels" to me - studying both the information I've gained thus far and
my own reponses to it.
> 3. Has your faith or fervour ever flickered a little or has it become
> stronger with more life experience?
It has become stronger over time.
> 4. Have you ever thought of converting?
> If yes, to what and why?
> If no, what do you think of those who convert?
I've converted many times to many different faiths. Perhaps you
need to develop a set of criteria for the term.
> 5. Do you consider astrology a religion?
> Why?
No, I consider it a soft science, such as psychology or
anthropology. It has a set of formulae that are subject to change as
the field of research widens and it can be used as an investigative
tool into the workings of the human mind and of patterns of behavior
among groups.
> 6. What are your views on the new religious movements (New Age Gps
> included)? Raise egs pls.
Some of them alarm me (the Branch Davidians, for example). Some
of them I consider to be harmless fluff (crystal scryers). I consider
them all to have some value, whether as an example of what not to do
or as yet one more means to the end - that end being the further
maturation of the human species.
> 7. What are your views with regards to reincarnation? Pls elaborate.
What I believe concerning reincarnation is a mix of Far Eastern
beliefs in Karma and what Edgar Cayce has suggested. We come back
again to try to do better, but where we come back and in what
condition is determined by our Karma. Yet we do come back as many
times as we need to on this plane in order to progess to the next one,
and the next, and so on, until we get to "heaven" (for want of a
better term). The latter is Edgar Cayce's word on it.
> 8. List your age gp:
> A: below 14
> B: 15-21
> C: 22-28
> D: 29-35
> E: 36-42
I am 40.