This group and 93 astrologers

[Axel]

Ray, I wanted to bump up the thread on the 93 eminent astrologers but
the "Reply" button seems to vanish from all threads after 20 or 21
days. Is this a setting you can change? In some forums a thread can
lie dormant for a couple of years and suddenly become hot again. Also
we are a very small group, so there is not the kind of traffic that
will keep threads alive for a long time.

Anyway, I wondered if you had checked the big astrologers' list for
the same factor (Moon-Sun arc). Eyeballing the numbers in the Taurus-
Aquarius thread, I figure there must be over 1500 astrologers in ADB.

[Ray Murphy]

Axel wrote:

> Ray, I wanted to bump up the thread on the 93 eminent astrologers but
> the "Reply" button seems to vanish from all threads after 20 or 21
> days. Is this a setting you can change? In some forums a thread can
> lie dormant for a couple of years and suddenly become hot again. Also
> we are a very small group, so there is not the kind of traffic that
> will keep threads alive for a long time.

RM: I don't know of any way to change the automatic dropping-out of
active threads, so I'll copy/paste the original message below.

> Anyway, I wondered if you had checked the big astrologers' list for
> the same factor (Moon-Sun arc). Eyeballing the numbers in the Taurus-
> Aquarius thread, I figure there must be over 1500 astrologers in ADB.

==========
[In January I wrote]:
Astrodatabank conducted a small project to see if an "astrological
signature" could be found amongst the factors of 100
prominentastrologers. After seeing the results I wanted to run the
data through one of my programs to check a few things but I was not
able to acquire all of it because it came from ADB version 4 but I
only have ADB version 3, which has only 93 of the 100 astrologers in
it, however even with the reduced amount of data I noticed a very
strong bunching of MOO 30 SUN aspects with a very wide orb of 15
degrees. It was double the theoretical mean rate for Moon-Sun aspects
and 1 in 3 of the astrologers had it.


Here is a description of the project at Astrodatabank's website:
http://www.astrodatabank.com/AS/ASAstrologyOfAstrologers.htm


Here is a graph which shows the distribution of those very wide
aspects. It has been uploaded to the Files section in this
group:
http://tropical-astrology-research.googlegroups.com/web/93%20astrologers%20-%20SU-MO%20aspects.gif?gda=QZ8UUFYAAAAQ2h7pAf-vsIz_3fdUJPuOnS2z11AbRdMesrL71pXCCeG2sVwGLF-i21hNBTL4y6PGZd00WC4hfJXD8xLkejDtd2MNkHLYWC1GR5oGkATl3efNEYuTusy3UFVkXO2J8l8&hl=en-GB


The peak in the graph was so high that I wondered if it was just
chance at play or whether researchers can unknowingly select data that
has certain similarities.
==========

RM: To answer your question above: Yes, some time ago I checked much
larger batches of astrologers listed in Astrodatabank -- both the full
set and a smaller set of names that I recognised as being dedicated to
the art, but from memory I don't think the Sun-Moon angular separation
in the data showed a similar trend, however it's something I'll be
keeping in mind because there may well be a Sun-Moon phase thing
working for a particular type of astrologer - but how would we
identify them?

If the phenomena is real, it may have something to do with being
dedicated AND prominent, like the 100 who were selected by the ADB
researcher (of which I used only 93). I suppose if we could tag a
large batch of astrologers under various categories, I could run them
all through one of the special programs I wrote where batches can be
compared simultaneously.

Such an exercise could involve tagging astrologers in several ways, so
they wouldn't HAVE to necessarily fit in a particular category. For
example we could have an astrologer tagged as "prominent" but not
necessarily any good at extracting useful information from charts.

This is a good topic - how many ways could be reasonably label most
astrologers?

Ray