Earth Day.
lilweed
Sunday the 22nd of April
cts...@hotmail.com
All times are in EDT. Please add 4 hours for times in GMT.
Earth Day.
April 22nd will be the 31st Anniversary of Earth Day.
A Challenge for the 21st Century.
The chart for Earth day shows a trine Between Mars-Chiron
and the Moon. Mercury and Juno join the Taurian Sun and square
Neptune. Mars-Chiron is in Sagittarius and Sextiles Uranus in
Aquarius. Neptune trines Jupiter and squares Earth.
This is a very beautiful and telling combination for Earth Day.
It bodes well for the future.
Taurus is connected with the land and values. The lesson of Taurus
is to transform our values by transmuting desire into aspiration.
As our self-centred desires are transformed into expressions of love
and service, the energy of Taurus becomes transformative, expressing
itself through the Fourth Ray of the Art of Living. We can transform
our surroundings through artistic and professional expression creating
Heaven on Earth.
As we begin to attune to the sacredness and the sanctity of all life,
we are realising that land is not merely a commodity to be exploited.
A nation's capital is the air, water, soil, forests, minerals, rivers,
lakes, oceans, scenic beauty, wildlife habitats and bio-diversity.
We begin to realise that the land does not belong to us, but that we
belong to the land and we are learning to use it with love and respect.
As the human family is healed from emotional wounding and separative
and aggressive tendencies, we are assuming responsibility for the loving
care and management of the Earth and its resources.
A new generation of people is now initiating a national and international
dialogue on sustainability. This dialogue will mark a turning point in
human history and is producing a quantum shift in our consciousness.
"Building a sustainable society is the critical challenge of this century.
Everything depends on it.", Senator Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day.
The Moon conjoins Vesta at 10:14 AM.
The emotional intuitive, realm combines the focusing principle.
Known to the Greeks as Hestia, she embodies honest and faithful dealings.
She governs the sacred law of hospitality, offering the warmth of the
sacred flame, food and shelter to strangers. Her hearth is the sanctuary
and protection of the sacred fire.
The Moon sextiles Uranus at 6:22 PM.
The emotional, intuitive realm combines with electric will. This transit
gives a pleasant feeling and a desire for excitement. Technology and
interaction with like minded people can bring new inspiration and new
solutions.
The Moon trines Mars at 11:34 PM.
The emotional intuitive realm combines with electric Divine love. By taking
the initiative and making emotional contact with others, we are able to make
progress.
The healing energy from Mars-Chiron in Sagittarius is bringing our desire
into line with our soul aspirations so that we have greater clarity of
vision and motivation to fulfil our purpose. We have the opportunity to
transmute separative desires that are holding us back, into more inclusive
aspirations.
When we express our energy in this way it affects the energy field of other
people and inspires them to make a change in their lives so that all of us
can build a more sustainable future.
The Balsamic Moon goes void in Aries at 11:34 PM.
The balsamic void Moon in Aries is an excellent time to go into the silence
or into deep meditation where we can attune to the wisdom and divine love
of our inner being.
Jonathan Ball
anything she believes that is *not* bullshit.
lilweed
if that sort of thing is not to your liking, don't read it.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/creature.htm
Jonathan Ball
lilweed wrote:
>
> That's _your_ opinion bucko. 'Astrologer' was in the heading,
> if that sort of thing is not to your liking, don't read it.
Astrology has been debunked as the primitive beliefs of ignorant people
for centuries.
What is to my liking is pointing out that you are a willfully stupid
person.
lilweed
>
> lilweed wrote:
> >
> > That's _your_ opinion bucko. 'Astrologer' was in the heading,
> > if that sort of thing is not to your liking, don't read it.
>
> Astrology has been debunked as the primitive beliefs of ignorant people
> for centuries.
Nonsense. But if that's what you want to believe..
> What is to my liking is pointing out that you are a willfully stupid
> person.
>
All you've demonstrated so far is that you are an exceedingly ignorant shmuck.
Jonathan Ball
lilweed wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > lilweed wrote:
> > >
> > > That's _your_ opinion bucko. 'Astrologer' was in the heading,
> > > if that sort of thing is not to your liking, don't read it.
> >
> > Astrology has been debunked as the primitive beliefs of ignorant people
> > for centuries.
>
> Nonsense. But if that's what you want to believe..
Not nonsense. Astrology is bullshit. There's no theory behind it, and
it's trivially easy to show that the positions of planets and stars have
no influence on events on earth.
>
> > What is to my liking is pointing out that you are a willfully stupid
> > person.
> >
>
> All you've demonstrated so far is that you are an exceedingly ignorant shmuck.
Nope. I've demonstrated that there isn't a crackpot, bullshit bit of
mysticism in which you won't dabble. Your unlicensed, er, "medical"
practice is just one more of them.
lilweed
Evolutionary
obnoxious and stupid MYSELF!. Ethics are one thing he will never have,
but I guess we will have to tolerate this infidel and his demeaning
character in this NG.
Evolutionary
troll who thinks he knows something!
L-Ping
Ball?
Jonathan Ball
lilweed wrote:
>
> You are in the dark bucko, but that doesn't mean the sun don't shine.
That isn't even cute.
Astrology is primitive, ignorant bullshit. It figures you go for it.
Jonathan Ball
L-Ping wrote:
>
> Are you this intolerant of other peoples beliefs, religious or otherwise Mr
> Ball?
I'm completely tolerant of them, fool. I simply don't respect them.
You need to learn what tolerance is. You appear not to have a clue.
L-Ping
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3AE36C25...@earthlink.net...
Tolerance: allow the existence/occurrence of without authoritative
interference, leave unmolested: not be harmed by: find or treat as
endurable.
Toleration: Tolerating, esp. allowing of differences in religion without
discrimination.
If telling somebody that their beliefs are bullshit is tolerance, well I'd
hate to see you react to something you don't tolerate.
You seem to have no respect for your fellow humans and you seem to have no
respect for animals. Is there anything that you respect?
Jonathan Ball
L-Ping wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE36C25...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > L-Ping wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you this intolerant of other peoples beliefs, religious or otherwise
> Mr
> > > Ball?
> >
> > I'm completely tolerant of them, fool. I simply don't respect them.
> >
> > You need to learn what tolerance is. You appear not to have a clue.
>
> Tolerance: allow the existence/occurrence of without authoritative
> interference, leave unmolested: not be harmed by: find or treat as
> endurable.
Exactly what I do regarding other people's beliefs, "religious or
otherwise". What's the problem?
>
> Toleration: Tolerating, esp. allowing of differences in religion without
> discrimination.
>
> If telling somebody that their beliefs are bullshit is tolerance, well I'd
> hate to see you react to something you don't tolerate.
I'd react more strongly.
> You seem to have no respect for your fellow humans
You have insufficient data to reach that conclusion. You're just pissed
off because I don't respect people you think I ought to respect.
> and you seem to have no respect for animals.
Animals are not people. They couldn't possibly merit the same kind of
respect.
> Is there anything that you respect?
Yes.
L-Ping
>
>
> L-Ping wrote:
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AE36C25...@earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > L-Ping wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are you this intolerant of other peoples beliefs, religious or
otherwise
> > Mr
> > > > Ball?
> > >
> > > I'm completely tolerant of them, fool. I simply don't respect them.
> > >
> > > You need to learn what tolerance is. You appear not to have a clue.
> >
> > Tolerance: allow the existence/occurrence of without authoritative
> > interference, leave unmolested: not be harmed by: find or treat as
> > endurable.
>
> Exactly what I do regarding other people's beliefs, "religious or
> otherwise". What's the problem?
Telling them that their beliefs are bullshit is not exactly being tolerant
of their beliefs.
> > Toleration: Tolerating, esp. allowing of differences in religion
without
> > discrimination.
> >
> > If telling somebody that their beliefs are bullshit is tolerance, well
I'd
> > hate to see you react to something you don't tolerate.
>
> I'd react more strongly.
>
> > You seem to have no respect for your fellow humans
>
> You have insufficient data to reach that conclusion. You're just pissed
> off because I don't respect people you think I ought to respect.
No it doesn't piss me off at all, I just feel that people should not go
around insulting other peoples beliefs esp. when they are harmless (unless
of course it is something like white supremacy, child abuse etc then I whole
heartedly applaud intolerance). I reach these conclusions with the limited
data available i.e. your posts and if I am wrong then I apologise from the
bottom of my heart and humbly beg your forgiveness. I make my judgements on
the information available in any subject and willingly change my opinions
etc. when proven otherwise with valid information.
> > and you seem to have no respect for animals.
>
> Animals are not people. They couldn't possibly merit the same kind of
> respect.
>
Yes you are entitled to that view (yet some would argue against it), however
a report by an agricultural economist for the French National Agriculture
Institute made this judgement at the United Nations World Food Conference in
1974, "The over consumption of meat by the rich means hunger for the poor.
This wasteful agriculture must be changed". If not for respect for animals
then how about respect for your fellow human beings, both those living and
those yet unborn. The meat industry (and intensive agriculture of any form)
is an extremely inefficient form of food production and causes massive
environmental damage which will have dire consequences for both animals and
humans alike.
> > Is there anything that you respect?
>
> Yes.
Such as?
Jonathan Ball
L-Ping wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE38204...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > L-Ping wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3AE36C25...@earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > L-Ping wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you this intolerant of other peoples beliefs, religious or
> otherwise
> > > Mr
> > > > > Ball?
> > > >
> > > > I'm completely tolerant of them, fool. I simply don't respect them.
> > > >
> > > > You need to learn what tolerance is. You appear not to have a clue.
> > >
> > > Tolerance: allow the existence/occurrence of without authoritative
> > > interference, leave unmolested: not be harmed by: find or treat as
> > > endurable.
> >
> > Exactly what I do regarding other people's beliefs, "religious or
> > otherwise". What's the problem?
>
> Telling them that their beliefs are bullshit is not exactly being tolerant
> of their beliefs.
Of course it is. It's in perfect accord with your - and my -
definition, above.
>
> > > Toleration: Tolerating, esp. allowing of differences in religion
> without
> > > discrimination.
> > >
> > > If telling somebody that their beliefs are bullshit is tolerance, well
> I'd
> > > hate to see you react to something you don't tolerate.
> >
> > I'd react more strongly.
> >
> > > You seem to have no respect for your fellow humans
> >
> > You have insufficient data to reach that conclusion. You're just pissed
> > off because I don't respect people you think I ought to respect.
>
> No it doesn't piss me off at all, I just feel that people should not go
> around insulting other peoples beliefs esp. when they are harmless (unless
> of course it is something like white supremacy, child abuse etc then I whole
> heartedly applaud intolerance).
Well, then! Intolerance is just peachy when it meets your standards,
eh?
> I reach these conclusions with the limited
> data available i.e. your posts and if I am wrong then I apologise from the
> bottom of my heart and humbly beg your forgiveness. I make my judgements on
> the information available in any subject and willingly change my opinions
> etc. when proven otherwise with valid information.
>
> > > and you seem to have no respect for animals.
> >
> > Animals are not people. They couldn't possibly merit the same kind of
> > respect.
> >
> Yes you are entitled to that view (yet some would argue against it), however
> a report by an agricultural economist for the French National Agriculture
> Institute made this judgement at the United Nations World Food Conference in
> 1974, "The over consumption of meat by the rich means hunger for the poor.
False.
> This wasteful agriculture must be changed". If not for respect for animals
What does the mistake-prone French economist's quote have to do with
"respect" for animals? Rien du tout.
> then how about respect for your fellow human beings, both those living and
> those yet unborn. The meat industry (and intensive agriculture of any form)
> is an extremely inefficient form
That's meaningless and wrong. You can't define "efficiency" in an
analytically useful way. You have a *moral* sense of how land ought to
be used, not an economic one. In other words, you're spouting
value-judgment bullshit.
> of food production and causes massive
> environmental damage which will have dire consequences for both animals and
> humans alike.
It could, as animal husbandry is currently practiced. It needn't.
You're being dishonest: you're trying to use environmental concern to
beat up on something that you find morally objectionable. If all the
environmental issues were resolved, you'd still be opposed to animal
husbandry. Drop the bogus environmentalism: it's transparent.
L-Ping
> >
> > No it doesn't piss me off at all, I just feel that people should not go
> > around insulting other peoples beliefs esp. when they are harmless
(unless
> > of course it is something like white supremacy, child abuse etc then I
whole
> > heartedly applaud intolerance).
>
> Well, then! Intolerance is just peachy when it meets your standards,
> eh?
So you are saying that you tolerate fascism, child abuse etc? I get the
impression from your posts that you may be more intelligent than that and
that possibly you are just saying this to get a reaction.
> > I reach these conclusions with the limited
> > data available i.e. your posts and if I am wrong then I apologise from
the
> > bottom of my heart and humbly beg your forgiveness. I make my
judgements on
> > the information available in any subject and willingly change my
opinions
> > etc. when proven otherwise with valid information.
> >
> > > > and you seem to have no respect for animals.
> > >
> > > Animals are not people. They couldn't possibly merit the same kind of
> > > respect.
> > >
> > Yes you are entitled to that view (yet some would argue against it),
however
> > a report by an agricultural economist for the French National
Agriculture
> > Institute made this judgement at the United Nations World Food
Conference in
> > 1974, "The over consumption of meat by the rich means hunger for the
poor.
>
> False.
>
> > This wasteful agriculture must be changed". If not for respect for
animals
>
> What does the mistake-prone French economist's quote have to do with
> "respect" for animals? Rien du tout.
I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick somewhat, I was not
using the quote to illustrate the need for respect for animals, I was using
it to illustrate respect for your fellow human beings.
> > then how about respect for your fellow human beings, both those living
and
> > those yet unborn. The meat industry (and intensive agriculture of any
form)
> > is an extremely inefficient form
>
> That's meaningless and wrong. You can't define "efficiency" in an
> analytically useful way. You have a *moral* sense of how land ought to
> be used, not an economic one. In other words, you're spouting
> value-judgment bullshit.
>
> > of food production and causes massive
> > environmental damage which will have dire consequences for both animals
and
> > humans alike.
>
> It could, as animal husbandry is currently practiced. It needn't.
> You're being dishonest: you're trying to use environmental concern to
> beat up on something that you find morally objectionable. If all the
> environmental issues were resolved, you'd still be opposed to animal
> husbandry. Drop the bogus environmentalism: it's transparent.
>
No, it will as animal husbandry is practiced. At no point in any of my
posts have I said that I am opposed to animal husbandry, as I have
previously stated in other posts I have no objection to meat eating by other
people or the breeding of animals I would just like to see more compassion
and sustainability in animal husbandry practices and agriculture as a whole.
No I re-phrase that, I would like to see more sustainability and compassion
in the world in general from the way people treat animals to the way that
people treat each other and our planet.
Jonathan Ball
L-Ping wrote:
>
> > >
> > > No it doesn't piss me off at all, I just feel that people should not go
> > > around insulting other peoples beliefs esp. when they are harmless
> (unless
> > > of course it is something like white supremacy, child abuse etc then I
> whole
> > > heartedly applaud intolerance).
> >
> > Well, then! Intolerance is just peachy when it meets your standards,
> > eh?
>
> So you are saying that you tolerate fascism, child abuse etc?
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm pointing out that you first threw
the "intolerance" label around way too carelessly.
> I get the
> impression from your posts that you may be more intelligent than that and
> that possibly you are just saying this to get a reaction.
[...]
maria
side, to hold such high ideals is good for all and good for the animals and
the environment.
I'ts sometimes sad to go through threads like this and listen to the
nit-picking and intellectual gymnastics of the blood-soaked animal abusers
who haunt the site.
They pour their bile, spite and slurry over everything noble and good.
"Evolutionary" <hyb...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3AE35815...@pacbell.net...
John Harrington
> > ...it's trivially easy to show that the positions of planets and stars
have
> > no influence on events on earth.
Good god. Jonathan Ball apparently lacks the most basic grasp of logic.
John
(member of CSICOP, considers astrology to be bunk)
Dutch
Michael Cerkowski
More likely he's saying that he believes in gravity.
Jonathan is a little weak on thermodynamics, so maybe
he needs to brush up on celestial mechanics as well.
--
Jonathan Ball
I could have been more precise: The relative positions of stars and
planets have no influence on human events. As someone - Carl Sagan? -
once famously put it, the nurses in the delivery room exhibit a greater
gravitational influence on a newborn baby than any celestial body apart
from the moon and possibly the sun.
Astrology is bullshit. Your pal ~~SlagWeed~~ believes in it, for
superstitious religious reasons, much as you believe in your high school
sophomore's interpretation of marxism.
John Harrington
jon...@earthlink.NS.net wrote on 4/24/01 10:47 PM:
>
>
> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "John Harrington" <jbay...@my-deja.com> wrote
>>>>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>> ...it's trivially easy to show that the positions of planets and stars
>>>> have
>>>>>> no influence on events on earth.
>>>>
>>>> Good god. Jonathan Ball apparently lacks the most basic grasp of logic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> (member of CSICOP, considers astrology to be bunk)
>>>
>>> Are you saying you believe in astrology?
>>
>> More likely he's saying that he believes in gravity.
>> Jonathan is a little weak on thermodynamics, so maybe
>> he needs to brush up on celestial mechanics as well.
>
> I could have been more precise:
You could have thought before you posted. But that hasn't happened yet, and
I doubt it ever will.
> The relative positions of stars and
> planets have no influence on human events.
You still don't get it, you irrational buffoon.
> As someone - Carl Sagan? -
It was CS, yes. You seem to have gotten all your education from TV. What a
surprise.
> once famously put it, the nurses in the delivery room exhibit a greater
> gravitational influence on a newborn baby than any celestial body apart
> from the moon and possibly the sun.
That shows that the planets' *gravity* has no effect on the delivery room,
dummy!
>
> Astrology is bullshit. Your pal ~~SlagWeed~~ believes in it, for
I've never met or exchanged a single word with anyone named "~~SlagWeed~~",
so he's not my "pal" and I don't give a shit what he believes in.
> superstitious religious reasons, much as you believe in your high school
> sophomore's interpretation of marxism.
Snort. You just make it up as you go along, don't you, dum dum? You want
to quote me endorsing "marxism" asshole? I have criticized "consumerism",
but you don't need to be a Marxist to do that. Of course the logic of that
would be lost on someone who thinks universal negatives are "trivially easy"
to prove.
Good god you're dumb.
John
CSICOP member, disbeliever in astrology
Jonathan Ball
You need to learn how to follow threads in usenet, Newbie. My post was
in response to Slick Cerkowski, not you.