demon.co.uk address.
Emaille
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------EE88D5D4BA48B4DE8E110DD8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"demon.co.uk address."
Wat is dat?
What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
But wat is it?
--------------EE88D5D4BA48B4DE8E110DD8
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rita Camphuijsen
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Rita Camphuijsen
n: Camphuijsen;Rita
email;internet: hel...@globalxs.nl
note;quoted-printable:Rita;=0D=0A=
"All there is, is Motion."=0D=0A=
VEDA says: Motion has something to do with her. =
=0D=0A=
Anyway, I move my thoughts from the Netherlands to the net.
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------EE88D5D4BA48B4DE8E110DD8--
Sherilyn
In article <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>, Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl>
writes
>"demon.co.uk address."
>Wat is dat?
>What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
>But wat is it?
>
website, static IP. They have a Dutch operation, too: demon.nl.
Service is a bit patchy, but you can't have everything.
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>, Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl>
> writes
> >"demon.co.uk address."
> >Wat is dat?
> >What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
> >But wat is it?
> Nothing wrong with it. Ten pounds a month, own nodename, own 5MB
> website, static IP. They have a Dutch operation, too: demon.nl.
So that I can go to groups I have no interest in, know nothing about and
simply post off topic to aggravate and disturb in a powerless manner all
those who believe differently than I do.
> For the Sherilyn has no insight into herself, you see.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Stephen Tonkin
>"demon.co.uk address."
>Wat is dat?
>What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
>But wat is it?
Demon Internet Services is the biggest ISP in the UK. They also have an
ISP in the Netherlands, demon.nl
Because it is the biggest ISP in the UK, it is not surprising that a
large number of UK posters to alt.astrology have demon addresses. Some
people on alt.astrology, notably Edmond Wollman and Marsha, refuse to
accept that and have deluded themselves that anyone posting from a demon
address is part of an organised conspiracy to piss on their parade.
Whilst I have every intention of pissing on their parade at every
opportunity (because I despise astrologers who use their mumbo jumbo to
rip people off), I am not part of any organised conspiracy. Neither, I
suspect, is any other person who posts from demon. They are merely
critical people who can see through the noxious bullshit purveyed by
most astrologers in alt.astrology
--
Stephen Tonkin
EWollmann
>From: Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl>
>Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:37:38 +0200
>Message-id: <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>
>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------EE88D5D4BA48B4DE8E110DD8
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>"demon.co.uk address."
>What's that? I get the impression it
The address is meaningless, it is the posters that represent it that will
ensure it is an address that is rapidly going to lose credibility.
Powerless spammers forcing their veiws on others because they have nothing
to do.
Edmond H. Wollmann
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Sue Armitage
In article <5YaNiRAy...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
Hello Stephen,
Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
astrologer posting from a Demon address. Since I have conversed at
various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
can discount the above, don't you?
Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up in
a brewery.
Sincerely,
Sue
Marsha
Unless of course--Ed, Ann, Sue & Marsha are all the same person! :))
--
If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on
anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.
Margaret Thatcher
Edmond Wollmann
Sue Armitage wrote:
Hi Sue!
My server has been down.
In article <5YaNiRAy...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>, Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl>
wrote:
> >>"demon.co.uk address."
> >>Wat is dat?
> >>What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
> >>But wat is it?
> >Demon Internet Services is the biggest ISP in the UK. They also have an
> >ISP in the Netherlands, demon.nl
> >Because it is the biggest ISP in the UK, it is not surprising that a
> >large number of UK posters to alt.astrology have demon addresses. Some
> >people on alt.astrology, notably Edmond Wollman and Marsha, refuse to
> >accept that and have deluded themselves that anyone posting from a demon
> >address is part of an organised conspiracy to piss on their parade.
> >Whilst I have every intention of pissing on their parade at every
> >opportunity (because I despise astrologers who use their mumbo jumbo to
> >rip people off),
Well here we have that old scientific objectivity at work eh?
> I am not part of any organised conspiracy.
After the above statement you are probably not much of a part of
anything.
> Neither, I
> >suspect, is any other person who posts from demon. They are merely
> >critical people who can see through the noxious bullshit purveyed by
> >most astrologers in alt.astrology
I've got news for you partner, I am a 4.0 student in critical thinking
and logic. Of course I was only given those scores by Ph D's in the
subject, not someone as critical in their thinking and qualified as a
"demon.co.uk" credential would give.
> Hello Stephen,
> Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
> astrologer posting from a Demon address. Since I have conversed at
> various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
> can discount the above, don't you?
> Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up in
> a brewery.
> Sincerely,
> Sue
XXXX
--
"But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
William Shakespeare, 1564-1616
Measure for Measure, II, ii.
Marsha
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
....
Sue:
> >Since I have conversed at
> >various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
> >can discount the above, don't you?
>
> Perhaps then you can explain why they
> make denigrating comments
Please quote one of my denigrating comments about "demon.uk users".
Stephen's reply: __________________________________________
Thankyou. Now go do something more constructive--Sue's suggestion comes
to mind.
> of the
> "another demon.uk (sic) user"? Are you suggesting that they are being
....
Sue:
> >Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up
> >in a brewery.
>
> I don't think I could manage that....
Give it a try. You'd be surpised at what can be accomplished if you put
your mind to it ;))
>
--
> Stephen Tonkin
--
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail.
Muriel Strode
Dr. Jai Maharaj
In article <lVr1kHAsc$E0E...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <5YaNiRAy...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
> <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>,
>> Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl> wrote:
>>>"demon.co.uk address."
>>>Wat is dat?
>>>What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
>>>But wat is it?
> >
>>Demon Internet Services is the biggest ISP in the UK. They also have an
> >ISP in the Netherlands, demon.nl
> >
> >Because it is the biggest ISP in the UK, it is not surprising that a
> >large number of UK posters to alt.astrology have demon addresses. Some
> >people on alt.astrology, notably Edmond Wollman and Marsha, refuse to
> >accept that and have deluded themselves that anyone posting from a demon
> >address is part of an organised conspiracy to piss on their parade.
>
> >
> >Whilst I have every intention of pissing on their parade at every
> >opportunity (because I despise astrologers who use their mumbo jumbo to
> >suspect, is any other person who posts from demon. They are merely
> >critical people who can see through the noxious bullshit purveyed by
> >most astrologers in alt.astrology
>
>
> Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
> various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
> can discount the above, don't you?
>
> a brewery.
>
>
> Sue
So far, most of the net terrorism evidently intended to
disrupt dscussions in astrology newsgroups has
originated from fielding.demon.co.uk
Take a look at the Vedic astrology newsgroup alt.jyotish
Posts from that address are of the form
[ANY NAME]@fielding.demon.co.uk
and are obviously the work of Phil Purle (aka Phil Fielding)
who uses the address
Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
Om Shanti
[ Cc: ab...@demon.net ]
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Stephen Tonkin
In article <lVr1kHAsc$E0E...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5YaNiRAy...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
><as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Because it is the biggest ISP in the UK, it is not surprising that a
>>large number of UK posters to alt.astrology have demon addresses. Some
>>people on alt.astrology, notably Edmond Wollman and Marsha, refuse to
>>accept that and have deluded themselves that anyone posting from a demon
>>address is part of an organised conspiracy to piss on their parade.
>Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
>astrologer posting from a Demon address. Since I have conversed at
>various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
>can discount the above, don't you?
Perhaps then you can explain why they make denigrating comments of the
"another demon.uk (sic) user"? Are you suggesting that they are being
*intentionally* disingenuous because, if what you say about having had
friendly conversations with them is true, then that is the only possible
explanation of their derogatory remarks about Demon users in general.
>
>
>Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up in
>a brewery.
I don't think I could manage that....
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
In article <C4kDKCAP...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <lVr1kHAsc$E0E...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
>>astrologer posting from a Demon address. Since I have conversed at
>>various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
>>can discount the above, don't you?
>
>Perhaps then you can explain why they make denigrating comments of the
>"another demon.uk (sic) user"?
Actually hadn't noticed that they did - but as denigrating comments go
it doesn't seem all that denigrating........I'm sure Demon will survive
it....
> Are you suggesting that they are being
>*intentionally* disingenuous because, if what you say about having had
>friendly conversations with them is true, then that is the only possible
>explanation of their derogatory remarks about Demon users in general.
I think you will find that both Ed and Marsha do everything
intentionally. That's what happens when you create your own reality....
If you would like to learn about creating *your* own reality I'm sure Ed
will be pleased to assist you....
>
>>
>>
>>Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up in
>>a brewery.
>
>I don't think I could manage that....
We are an amiable lot in alt.astrology. Keep an open mind and we'll
lend you some glasses:)
Sue
Edmond Wollmann
Wijnand Thompson wrote:
> In article <8737466...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai
> Maharaj) wrote:
> [stuff, snipped]
> *plonk*
WHHHHOOOOOAAAAAAA Man you guys are tuff and cool!:-))))
Must be another highly evolved intellectual.
--
"To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage" Confucious
Edmond Wollmann
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
"It is our conditioning, our current collective worldveiw that we are
taught by our parents, teachers and society. This way of seeing
things-the old paradigm-has aptly been called 'the hypnosis of social
conditioning' an induced fiction in which we have collectively agreed to
participate." Deepak Chopra M.D. Ageless Body, Timeless mind
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
shaped by the senses of man."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any
substance
without the mind....So long as they are not actually percieved by me, or
do not exist in my mind, or that of any other created spirit, they must
either have no existance at all, or else subsist in the mind of some
eternal spirit." Berkeley
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so
an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it."
Lincoln Barnett
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid
down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one encounters
in
later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident" concepts."
Albert Einstein
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
"The physicist has no need of the flow of time or the now in the world
of
physics. Indeed the theory of relativity rules out a universal present
for all observers. If there is any meaning at all to these concepts (and
many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that there is) then it would
seem to belong to psychology rather than physics." Paul Davies on Time
"...memory does not so much PRODUCE as DISCOVER personal identity, by
shewing us the relation of cause and effect among our different
perceptions." Davide Hume on personal identity
"In short, the world is not a collection of separate but coupled THINGS;
rather it is a network of relations." David Bohm
"The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world
and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate." Werner
Heisenberg
Without psychological insight and awareness of the momentum of our
consciousness, our actions are just reactions to the prescriptions of
the
higher self, meant for education of the conscious mind through the
'props' and symbols of physicality. Transcendence removes the apparency
of separated things.
>
> In article <tllrmAAb...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
> <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >That's what happens when you create your own reality....
> >If you would like to learn about creating *your* own reality I'm sure Ed
> >will be pleased to assist you....
>
> Thank you, but I prefer to live in the reality of the real world -- that
> won't go away if I "create" my own.
Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
way things are or must be. That assumption is the very thing that Amit
Goswami, with the assistance of Richard E. Reed and Maggie Gos-
wami, brings into question in the book you are about to read. For this
assumption, like its cloudy predecessors of the century before, seems
to
be signaling not only the end of a century but the end of science as we
know it. That assumption is that there exists, "out there," a real,
objec-
tive reality.
This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through
time expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the
microworld, such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet
the clouds still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the
objective world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into
matter, and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our
rational
minds working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
But we physicists are a stubborn lot, and we fear the proverbial toss
of
the baby out with che bathwater. We still lather and shave our faces
watching carefully as we use Occam's razor to make sure that we cut
away all superfluous "hairy assumptions." What are these clouds that
obscure the end of the twentieth century's abstract art form? They boil
down to one sentence:
The universe does not seem to exist without a
perceiver of that universe.
Well, at some level this certainly makes sense. Even the word "uni-
verse" is a human construct. So it would make some kind of sense that
what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
human beings. But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
there a universe? It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around? Again, logic
dictates that the laws of nature, forces and causes, etc., even though
we
didn't know about such things as atoms and subatomic particles, cer
tainly had to exist.
But it is just these assumptions about objective reality that have been
called into question by our present understanding of physics. Take, for
example, a simple particle, the electron. Is it a little speck of
matter? It
turns out that to assume that it is such, consistently behaving itself
as
such, is clearly wrong. For at times it appears to be a cloud made up
of
an infinite number of possible electrons that "appear" as a single
particle when and only when we observe one. Furthermore, when it is
not a single particle it appears to be an undulating wavelike cloud
that
is capable of moving at speeds in excess of light speed, totally
contra-
dicting the Einstein concern that nothing material can move faster
than light. But Einstein's worry is assuaged, for when it moves this
way
it is not actually a piece of matter
Take as another example the interaction between two electrons. Ac-
cording to quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
communication to move faster than light. Yet before those observations,
before a conscious observer made up his or her mind, even the form of
the connection was totally indeterminate. And as a third example, a
quantum system such as an electron in a bound physical state appears
to be in an indeterminate state, and yet the indeterminacy can be
analyzed into component certainties that somehow add to the original
uncertainty. Then along comes an observer who, like some gigantic
Alexander chopping the Gordian knot, resolves the uncertainty into a
single, definite but unpredictable state simply by observing the elec-
tron.
Not only that, the blow of the sword could come in the future
determining what state the electron is in now. For we have now even the
possibility that observations in the present legitimately determine
what
we can say was the past.
Thus we have come to the end of a road once again. There is too
much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
the objective world-one that is running forward in time like a clock,
one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action
at a
distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
more
places at the same time-is an illusion of our thinking.
Amit Goswami Ph.D. (Physics) "Self Aware Universe"
The most commonly debated issue, whether abductions are really
taking place, leads us to the center of questions about perception and
levels of consciousness.
The most glaring question is whether there is
any reality independent of consciousness.
At the level of personal con-
sciousness, can we apprehend reality directly, or are we by necessity
bound by the restrictions of our five senses and the mind that orga-
nizes our worldview? Is there a shared, collective consciousness that
operates beyond our individual consciousness? If there is a collective
consciousness, how is it influenced, and what determines its content?
Is UFO abduction a product of this shared consciousness? If, as in
some cultures, consciousness pervades all elements of the universe,
then what function do events like UFO abductions and various mysti-
cal experiences play in our psyches and in the rest of the cosmos?
John E. Mack M.D. (Psychiatrist-Harvard) "Abductions"
Wijnand Thompson
In article <8737466...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai
Maharaj) wrote:
[stuff, snipped]
*plonk*
--
Wijnand
Stephen Tonkin
In article <tllrmAAb...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That's what happens when you create your own reality....
>If you would like to learn about creating *your* own reality I'm sure Ed
>will be pleased to assist you....
Thank you, but I prefer to live in the reality of the real world -- that
won't go away if I "create" my own.
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
In article <Wyjm4$ATNLF...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
It's not so much the real world 'going away' as your perspective of it
changing. If you change your view of the world around you then you
interact with it differently. This is the objective of therapy - but
it cannot be achieved without self knowledge. Astrology is an
invaluable tool for understanding yourself. Please do not dismiss it
through prejudice.
Sue
Sherilyn
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97090...@odin.ax.com>, Robert
Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> writes
>
> I agree that demon.net allows behavior from their subscribers that
>are forbidden by other ISPs. For instance, I recently complained to AOL
>about one of their customers bragging about his ability to disrupt
>newsgroups at will. AOL took action to curtail that person's activities.
>Yet, when I have written to demon.net. about similar activities, I
>received notice that demon.net approves such behavior.
> Perhaps it is time to put pressure on demon.net by posting the
>following slogan:
>
> BOYCOTT DEMON.NET
> DEMON.NET HARBORS NET.TERRORISTS
>
>Robert G. Roosen, PhD (retired)
I do not speak for Demon Internet, but as a customer I would say this.
Demon internet does not permit its customers to disrupt the USENET
service. If you have evidence otherwise, please make it available to
ab...@demon.net. A copy of Demon's AUP is available from the server at:
ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/news/doc/AUP.txt
From the above-cited document:
...
2. WHAT CONSTITUTES NET.ABUSE?
NET.ABUSE is an abuse *of* Usenet, and not necessarily abuse *on*
Usenet. To qualify as NET.ABUSE, an act must interfere with the
net-use of a large number of people rather than one or two
individuals.
Under the terms of this AUP, NET.ABUSE includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
a) Chain Letters and Ponzi Pyramid-Selling Schemes
Such articles work (or rather, don't work) in much the same
way as their paper-based cousins. The most common example of
this on Usenet is MAKE-MONEY-FAST. In addition to being a
waste of resources, such posts are ILLEGAL in certain
countries.
b) Commercial Articles
The vast majority of newsgroups are of a non-commercial
nature, and readers of those newsgroups will object most
strongly to commercial traffic. Please check with the FAQ of
the newsgroup in question before posting articles of a
commercial nature
c) Binary Postings to non-Binary Groups
Outside of the alt.binaries.* and alt.pictures.* newsgroup
hierarchies, the posting of encoded binary data is considered
most unwelcome. The majority of Usenet sites and readers do
not have the capability for selective transmission of articles
(killfiling) and such posts can result in a significant amount
of resources being tied up and wasted in the transmission
process, and as such can be considered as a denial of service
attack on multiple recipients.
d) Excessive Multi-Posting (spam) and Excessive Cross-Posting (velveeta)
Simply put, these forms of NET.ABUSE occur when the same (or
similar) article is posted (EMP) or cross-posted (ECP) to a
large number of unrelated newsgroups. A more complete
definition of these (and other related) terms, can be found in
the FAQ regularly posted to news.admin.net-abuse.announce.
The abovementioned FAQ is available from here:
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
...
1.3) What is net-abuse?
Since the newsgroup's inception, many curious forms of Usenet
behavior have been discussed on it. Of these, spam is the
one most universally accepted as 'net-abuse', which is why it
gets its own section below. Other Frequently Aired Complaints
are discussed throughout the FAQ.
However, as Neil Pawson says, "it's for abuse *of* the net, NOT
abuse *on* the net." Just because somebody does something vile,
we don't necessarily want to hear about it on n.a.n-a. To
qualify as true panic-inspiring net-abuse, an act must interfere
with the net-use of a large number of people. Examples of this:
newsgroup flooding, widespread or organized forgery campaigns,
widespread or organized account hackery, widespread or organized
censorship attempts...
Robert Roosen
I agree that demon.net allows behavior from their subscribers that
are forbidden by other ISPs. For instance, I recently complained to AOL
about one of their customers bragging about his ability to disrupt
newsgroups at will. AOL took action to curtail that person's activities.
Yet, when I have written to demon.net. about similar activities, I
received notice that demon.net approves such behavior.
Perhaps it is time to put pressure on demon.net by posting the
following slogan:
Robert G. Roosen, PhD (retired)
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> In article <lVr1kHAsc$E0E...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
> Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In article <5YaNiRAy...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
> > <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>In article <3412A011...@globalxs.nl>,
> >> Emaille <hel...@globalxs.nl> wrote:
> >>>"demon.co.uk address."
> >>>Wat is dat?
> >>>What's that? I get the impression it is not so nice to have such thing.
> >>>But wat is it?
> > >
> >>Demon Internet Services is the biggest ISP in the UK. They also have an
> > >ISP in the Netherlands, demon.nl
> > >
> > >Because it is the biggest ISP in the UK, it is not surprising that a
> > >large number of UK posters to alt.astrology have demon addresses. Some
> > >people on alt.astrology, notably Edmond Wollman and Marsha, refuse to
> > >accept that and have deluded themselves that anyone posting from a demon
> > >address is part of an organised conspiracy to piss on their parade.
> >
> > >
> > >Whilst I have every intention of pissing on their parade at every
> > >opportunity (because I despise astrologers who use their mumbo jumbo to
> > >rip people off), I am not part of any organised conspiracy. Neither, I
> > >suspect, is any other person who posts from demon. They are merely
> > >critical people who can see through the noxious bullshit purveyed by
> > >most astrologers in alt.astrology
> >
> > Hello Stephen,
> >
> > Sorry to blow apart your 'Ed and Marsha paranoia theory' but I am an
> > astrologer posting from a Demon address. Since I have conversed at
> > various times with both Ed and Marsha in a friendly manner I think we
> > can discount the above, don't you?
> >
> > Don't be a silly boy. Maybe you should try organising your piss up in
> > a brewery.
> >
Paul Womar
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote:
> So far, most of the net terrorism evidently intended to
> disrupt dscussions in astrology newsgroups has
> originated from
You.
Stephen Tonkin
In article <592xeiCb...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>To
> qualify as true panic-inspiring net-abuse, an act must interfere
> with the net-use of a large number of people. Examples of this:
[snip]
> widespread or organized
> censorship attempts...
Does this include Edmond's censorship attempts?
--
Stephen Tonkin
Stephen Tonkin
In article <Y256oDAo...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's not so much the real world 'going away' as your perspective of it
>changing. If you change your view of the world around you then you
>interact with it differently.
The only way I wish to interact with the world around me is by doing
things which, according to my values/principles/mind-set/world-view will
benefit that world. Most people I know seem to think that I am doing so.
> This is the objective of therapy
Ah, therapy. Do you mean one of those new-agey ones which never actually
"cures" what ever the therapy is aimed at, but which leads people to
become more and more dependent on it (like a drug) whilst the part with
more and more cash to the therapist -- until they reach the stage that,
in order to be able to pay they become a therapist themselves?
> Astrology is an
>invaluable tool for understanding yourself. Please do not dismiss it
>through prejudice.
May I dismiss it through experience and after due thought?
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
In article <IPOxn8Bm...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>The only way I wish to interact with the world around me is by doing
>things which, according to my values/principles/mind-set/world-view will
>benefit that world. Most people I know seem to think that I am doing so.
:-)) People TELL you they think you are doing things to benefit the
world???? I think you should consider why you need your ego massaged in
this way......I am getting the feeling I am talking to a VERY young
man....
>
>> This is the objective of therapy
>
>Ah, therapy. Do you mean one of those new-agey ones which never actually
>"cures" what ever the therapy is aimed at, but which leads people to
>become more and more dependent on it (like a drug) whilst the part with
>more and more cash to the therapist -- until they reach the stage that,
>in order to be able to pay they become a therapist themselves?
Well no, actually I meant psychotherapy, which is not overly 'new-agey'
and I would be a little careful where you are going with this discussion
because I do a LOT of counselling for nothing. I do charge for some but
then I daresay you expect to get paid for the job you do, don't you? It
always interests me that in England people expect a therapist or
counsellor with years of training to do their job for nothing when they
would be quite happy to pay someone to clean the toilets.........
I am sorry if you have had bad experiences with unethical therapists of
any kind but please do not accuse me (however indirectly) of this
without some evidence - this is prejudice.
Oh and BTW psychotherapy does not claim to 'cure' people what it does is
assist them in healing themselves.
>
>> Astrology is an
>>invaluable tool for understanding yourself. Please do not dismiss it
>>through prejudice.
>
>May I dismiss it through experience and after due thought?
Yes you can if you have studied it in depth (and I don't mean reading
Sun sign columns in papers). If you have not studied it then you are
dismissing it through prejudice. I would be interested in the
'experience' that has lead you this antagonism.
Your post demonstrates that you are being judgemental both about me and
about astrology. I know you know nothing about me and you have yet to
demonstrate that you know anything about astrology.
Sue
Marsha
Sue Armitage wrote:
>
> In article <IPOxn8Bm...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
> <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >The only way I wish to interact with the world around me is by doing
> >things which, according to my values/principles/mind-set/world-view
> >will benefit that world. Most people I know seem to think that I am > >doing so.
> :-)) People TELL you they think you are doing things to benefit the
> world????
Apparently no-one tells *you* that. You know her well enough that you
can make such an obnoxiously arrogant statement?
> I think you should consider why you need your ego massaged
Looks like we may be getting to some of your real motivations here.
> in
> this way......
I am getting the feeling I am talking to a VERY young
> man....
Funny, I'm getting the same feeling talking to you.
....
> Well no, actually I meant psychotherapy, which is not overly 'new-agey'
> and I would be a little careful where you are going with this discussion
> because I do a LOT of counselling for nothing. I do charge for some but
> then I daresay you expect to get paid for the job you do, don't you? It
> always interests me that in England people expect a therapist or
> counsellor with years of training to do their job for nothing when they
> would be quite happy to pay someone to clean the toilets.........
>
> I am sorry if you have had bad experiences with unethical therapists of
> any kind but please do not accuse me (however indirectly) of this
> without some evidence - this is prejudice.
>
> Oh and BTW psychotherapy does not claim to 'cure' people what it does is
> assist them in healing themselves.
> >
> >> Astrology is an
> >>invaluable tool for understanding yourself. Please do not dismiss it
> >>through prejudice.
> >
> >May I dismiss it through experience and after due thought?
>
> Yes you can if you have studied it in depth (and I don't mean reading
> Sun sign columns in papers). If you have not studied it then you are
> dismissing it through prejudice. I would be interested in the
> 'experience' that has lead you this antagonism.
>
> Your post demonstrates that you are being judgemental both about me and
> about astrology. I know you know nothing about me and you have yet to
> demonstrate that you know anything about astrology.
>
> Sue
Marsha
EWollmann
>From: Stephen Tonkin <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:54:57 +0100
>Message-id: <J$fx7wBhB...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
I don't see any of us in other groups trying to thwart conversations with
their interests in the way you uninformed cynics do.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of facts.
In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to a
considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York" Davidson
and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
education. Anamolys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
We don't live by logic and facts we live by trust-if you disagree with
this premise, provide the factual basis and logical reason and/or purposes
for living. If you can't produce any I suggest you stop living because
there is no evidence or "facts" available to justify and quantify doing it
anymore.
Thank you for your contributions.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of principles
or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers and
sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
Marsha
I wonder what that makes me then.:))))) Don't tell me, I can figure it
out :))))
Sue Armitage wrote:
>
> Um......Marsha ..... I'm afraid this is ME being obnoxiously arrogant:)
>
> (Aw blimey.....it's a fair cop Guv....)
>
> Sue ;-)
Sue Armitage
In article <2EuOlQAm...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>Yes. Does it surprise you that people express appreciation of another
>person's work? I do most of my work for educational charities; such
>expression is not uncommon in such an environment, so it doesn't
>actually make me anything out of the ordinary.
Oh that's a relief :)
>
>I don't have a need to have my ego massaged. I do have a need to do
>something which enables me to sleep with my conscience.
Oh good:) So far we have a lot in common :)
>
>>.....I am getting the feeling I am talking to a VERY young
>>man....
>
>Now *you* are trying to massage my ego. No, I don't think I like it;
>it's so insincere.
Actually that wasn't what I was intending at all:)
>
>>I do charge for some but
>>then I daresay you expect to get paid for the job you do, don't you?
>
>Of course, although about half my work is entirely voluntary or
>travelling /accomodation expenses only. But I don't make people
>dependent upon me or what I do -- quite the reverse, in fact.
What makes you think I make people dependent on me? Or is this just
another general statement that has nothing to do with me? You work for
a charity - if people receive charity this is a kind of dependence. Not
everyone is strong enough to stand alone, but I would like to think that
the work I do assists people in achieving independence. It would be
unethical to make a client dependent.
>
>> It
>>always interests me that in England people expect a therapist or
>>counsellor with years of training to do their job for nothing when they
>>would be quite happy to pay someone to clean the toilets.
>
>Perhaps it's because people don't mind paying for things that get
>verifiable results?
Depends what you see as verifiable. If a client says 'I feel better' or
even if you see them coping more successfully with their lives then I
would count this as verification. I agree it is not 'measurable' in any
scientific way.
>
>
>Of the people I know who are counsellors (and I know a lot!), I wouldn't
>go near a single one of them if I wanted to talk about a personal
>problem. OTOH a chat over a few drinks with good friends does wonders.
>(Oh hell, I've just admitted to being able to organise a piss-up)
Well I'm glad you have a sense of humour......
>
>
>If I see someone stuck in a hole, I'm more likely to throw them a rope
>and pull them out, not jump in so I can "empathise" with them, or
>whatever today's term is for a pity party. Were I in a similar
>predicament, I'd appreciate similar treatment.
The trouble with that method is the hole is still there ready for them
to fall back into when you are not around with your rope. If you jump
in with them after a while the hole disappears and they can go on their
way quite safely. You may be into the 'stiff upper lip' treatment and
that's OK if it works for you. Not everyone can manage this.
>
>>I am sorry if you have had bad experiences with unethical therapists of
>>any kind but please do not accuse me (however indirectly) of this
>>without some evidence - this is prejudice.
>
>I accused you of nothing. I asked you a question. Perhaps you could
>indulge in a little self-therapy/counselling to enable you to
>distinction beteween an accusation and a question.
You implied - the same as you have above....
>
>Perhaps you (or someone else) could enlighten me as to why astrologers
>have this tendency to misrepresent anything/anyone that is possibly
>critical of what they do?
So you definitely don't think that in my work as an astrologer and
counsellor I try to make people dependent on me so that I can make lots
of money?
>
>I suppose, like most astrologers, you mean by studying it until I
>believe it. BTDTGTTS
I don't know what that last bit means. Have you studied it?
>
>>Your post demonstrates that you are being judgemental both about me and
>>about astrology.
>
>Really? What judgement do you claim I made about you? Asking a question
>(Hint: It began with the words "Do you mean..." and ended with a
>question mark.) is not making a judgement. However, your lie that I have
>done so enables me to make one now.
Lie? Please explain......
>
>> I know you know nothing about me and you have yet to
>>demonstrate that you know anything about astrology.
>
>Here is some of what I know about astrology:
>It derives from a time when people tried to make sense of the sky.
True
>It is a pseudoscience.
True
>It is used as a money-making scam.
It can be but then so can collecting for charities......
>Its practitioners have a tendency to evade answering direct questions
>about it or making statements that are testable.
Astrology is only testable in the same way that psychotherapy is
testable. I was reading an article about quantum physics today.
Apparently the Universe constantly readjusts itself so that we can all
have free will - this is also true of astrology - so if I were to say to
you 'Your chart indicates that you have a unique opportunity for
psychological growth at the moment' you could either go with this change
and grow if you wanted to OR you could sit in your house and feel
terrible for a few months and at the end of it be in exactly the same
place as before the transit. It would be entirely up to you. Astrology
is NOT scientifically testable because the planets don't MAKE you do
anything - but if you want to you can USE the energies.
>
>Or perhaps you meant that I have yet to demonstrate that I know the
>things astrology promulgates about itself?
Why so prickly? Open your mind. You are missing such a lot.
Sue
Stephen Tonkin
In article <19970910194...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
<ewol...@aol.com> wrote:
>taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
>Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
He then supposedly quoted a passage from the book:
>"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
>according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
>however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
>enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
>factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
>into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
>scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
>conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
>paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
>the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..."
I can't find that passage anywhere. I can find bits of it, but I
strongly suspect that Edmond has "augmented" ir in oreder to support his
point. Perhaps he would give us the edition and page number so we can be
sure that Kuhn did say all of the above.
In my extensive reading of Kuhn, I recall nowhere where he refers to
himself in the third person in this manner.
If this is merely as a result of "creative quoting" by Edmund, perhaps
he would be kind enough to let us know which of the quoted words are
Kuhn's and which are his own fiction.
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sherilyn
In article <J$fx7wBhB...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <592xeiCb...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>To
>> qualify as true panic-inspiring net-abuse, an act must interfere
>> with the net-use of a large number of people. Examples of this:
>[snip]
>> widespread or organized
>> censorship attempts...
>
>Does this include Edmond's censorship attempts?
>
I have referred to them as attempts at censorship, but they clearly are
not organized, just ad hoc whines to various postmasters. Here are a
few actions in my experience that amounted, IMO, to attempts at
censorship:
1) Attempt to rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
This was carried out by cult attorney Helena Kobrin
at Christmas 1994.
2) Organized canceling of posts to alt.religion.scientology
which were supposed to contain quotes from "secret"
documents of the cult whose "trade secret" status is under
dispute (early 1995 to present).
3) Threat to rmgroup alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
by the representative of that organization (I am uncertain
whether they ever actually attempt to carry out this
threat, which I recall was made some time in late 1995
or early 1996).
4) Attempt to flood alt.religion.scientology by posting
thousands of repetitive articles per day--this has been
carried out sporadically since mid-1996. The flooding
arguably amounts to a massive denial-of-service attack
by causing smaller news spools to flush all posts before
they can be read, and making meaningful posts difficult
to find.
As you can see, real net abuse is pretty big stuff.
Stephen Tonkin
In article <3417055D...@mindspring.com>, Marsha
<sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Either he's mixed up two different posts or he's rearranged things on
>purpose.
Untrue. Learn to count ">" levels.
Coker #1,9,12
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
Stephen Tonkin
In article <b8IalDAp...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:-)) People TELL you they think you are doing things to benefit the
>world????
Yes. Does it surprise you that people express appreciation of another
person's work? I do most of my work for educational charities; such
expression is not uncommon in such an environment, so it doesn't
actually make me anything out of the ordinary.
That's sufficient personal detail -- such stuff tends to get misused on
this NG and no doubt Edmond will soon start another rant at me for being
off-topic...
> I think you should consider why you need your ego massaged in
>this way.
I don't have a need to have my ego massaged. I do have a need to do
something which enables me to sleep with my conscience.
>.....I am getting the feeling I am talking to a VERY young
>man....
Now *you* are trying to massage my ego. No, I don't think I like it;
it's so insincere.
>I do charge for some but
>then I daresay you expect to get paid for the job you do, don't you?
Of course, although about half my work is entirely voluntary or
travelling /accomodation expenses only. But I don't make people
dependent upon me or what I do -- quite the reverse, in fact.
> It
>always interests me that in England people expect a therapist or
>counsellor with years of training to do their job for nothing when they
>would be quite happy to pay someone to clean the toilets.
Perhaps it's because people don't mind paying for things that get
verifiable results?
Of the people I know who are counsellors (and I know a lot!), I wouldn't
go near a single one of them if I wanted to talk about a personal
problem. OTOH a chat over a few drinks with good friends does wonders.
(Oh hell, I've just admitted to being able to organise a piss-up)
If I see someone stuck in a hole, I'm more likely to throw them a rope
and pull them out, not jump in so I can "empathise" with them, or
whatever today's term is for a pity party. Were I in a similar
predicament, I'd appreciate similar treatment.
>I am sorry if you have had bad experiences with unethical therapists of
>any kind but please do not accuse me (however indirectly) of this
>without some evidence - this is prejudice.
I accused you of nothing. I asked you a question. Perhaps you could
indulge in a little self-therapy/counselling to enable you to
distinction beteween an accusation and a question. Had it been a pretend
question of the "Have you stopped molesting your cat?" variety, I might
be able to understand your claim of accusation.
Perhaps you (or someone else) could enlighten me as to why astrologers
have this tendency to misrepresent anything/anyone that is possibly
critical of what they do?
>>> Astrology is an
>>>invaluable tool for understanding yourself. Please do not dismiss it
>>>through prejudice.
>>
>>May I dismiss it through experience and after due thought?
>
>Yes you can if you have studied it in depth (and I don't mean reading
>Sun sign columns in papers).
I suppose, like most astrologers, you mean by studying it until I
believe it. BTDTGTTS
>Your post demonstrates that you are being judgemental both about me and
>about astrology.
Really? What judgement do you claim I made about you? Asking a question
(Hint: It began with the words "Do you mean..." and ended with a
question mark.) is not making a judgement. However, your lie that I have
done so enables me to make one now.
> I know you know nothing about me and you have yet to
>demonstrate that you know anything about astrology.
Here is some of what I know about astrology:
It derives from a time when people tried to make sense of the sky.
It is a pseudoscience.
It is used as a money-making scam.
Its practitioners have a tendency to evade answering direct questions
about it or making statements that are testable.
Or perhaps you meant that I have yet to demonstrate that I know the
things astrology promulgates about itself?
--
Stephen Tonkin
Ian Dempsey
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97090...@odin.ax.com>
roo...@odin.ax.com "Robert Roosen" writes:
> I agree that demon.net allows behavior from their subscribers that
> are forbidden by other ISPs. For instance, I recently complained to AOL
> about one of their customers bragging about his ability to disrupt
> newsgroups at will. AOL took action to curtail that person's activities.
> Yet, when I have written to demon.net. about similar activities, I
> received notice that demon.net approves such behavior.
> Perhaps it is time to put pressure on demon.net by posting the
> following slogan:
>
> BOYCOTT DEMON.NET
> DEMON.NET HARBORS NET.TERRORISTS
>
So why partake in trolls by adding an unrelated newsgroup (demon.local)
to the newsgroups line?
Using the same logic as yourself, maybe you should be posting:
BOYCOTT ASTROLOGY
ASTROLOGERS HARBOUR NET TERRORISTS
EWollmann
>From: Stephen Tonkin <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:43:12 +0100
>Message-id: <F5fS6gAg...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <19970910194...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
><ewol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
>>Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
>
>He then supposedly quoted a passage from the book:
>
>>"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
>>according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
>>however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
>>enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
>>factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
>>into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
>>scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
>>conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
>>paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
>>the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..."
>
>I can't find that passage anywhere
Thats because
A) You don't want to and
B) You have reading problems.
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of facts.
In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to a
considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York" Davidson
and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
Stephen Tonkin
In article <6dZavDAq...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
My experience of counsellors and therapists (with the exception of
therapists like physiotherapists, speech therapists and the like who do
get measurable, testable results) is that that once someone is collared
by one of these people, it is damned difficult to get away.
> Or is this just
>another general statement that has nothing to do with me?
Precisely.
>The trouble with that method is the hole is still there ready for them
>to fall back into when you are not around with your rope.
Not if you fill it in; and you can't do that from inside unless you want
to end up buried.
>BTDTGTTS
>
>I don't know what that last bit means. Have you studied it?
Been There, Done That, Got The Tee Shirt.
>>Really? What judgement do you claim I made about you? Asking a question
>>(Hint: It began with the words "Do you mean..." and ended with a
>>question mark.) is not making a judgement. However, your lie that I have
>>done so enables me to make one now.
>
>Lie? Please explain......
That I made a judgement of you. I didn't. I asked a question.
>>It is used as a money-making scam.
>
>It can be but then so can collecting for charities......
Why do astrologers so often use this diversionary technique when
challenged? (rhetorical)
>
>>Its practitioners have a tendency to evade answering direct questions
>>about it or making statements that are testable.
>
>Astrology is only testable in the same way that psychotherapy is
>testable.
Precisely.
> I was reading an article about quantum physics today.
>Apparently the Universe constantly readjusts itself so that we can all
>have free will - this is also true of astrology -
Argument by spurious similarity.
>so if I were to say to
>you 'Your chart indicates that you have a unique opportunity for
>psychological growth at the moment' you could either go with this change
>and grow if you wanted to OR you could sit in your house and feel
>terrible for a few months and at the end of it be in exactly the same
>place as before the transit. It would be entirely up to you. Astrology
>is NOT scientifically testable because the planets don't MAKE you do
>anything - but if you want to you can USE the energies.
For the sake of this argument I will go along with the notion of
psychological growth.
Just telling someone that they have a "unique opportunity" is often
sufficient to get them off their butts to start doing something -- which
is why the phrase is used so much in sales jargon.
Do you claim that a person isn't capable of psychological growth
whatever planetary configuration exists?
It is by making such woolly statements as the "unique opportunity" one
followed by the "free will exclusion clause" that astrologers con people
into believing they have anything other than entertainment value.
Statements such as the ones you made are testable, except that
astrologers won't allow them to be tested. Start with agreed criteria
for what constitutes "psychological growth" and double-blind the
psychological testing and the astrological analysis. If astrology has
anything to offer, then there should be a skew in the data.
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
In article <8$C8rLAUq...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>therapists like physiotherapists, speech therapists and the like who do
>get measurable, testable results) is that that once someone is collared
>by one of these people, it is damned difficult to get away.
Then tell me what your experience is. Is it direct experience? (in
which case I hope you complained) Or is it what you have heard first,
second, third hand? What experience?
>
>> Or is this just
>>another general statement that has nothing to do with me?
>
>Precisely.
A general statement like the above which since I am a counsellor MUST
include me?
>
>>The trouble with that method is the hole is still there ready for them
>>to fall back into when you are not around with your rope.
>
>Not if you fill it in; and you can't do that from inside unless you want
>to end up buried.
Please tell me how you would fill it in? Are you a trained therapist or
just naturally talented in this area?
>
>>BTDTGTTS
>>
>>I don't know what that last bit means. Have you studied it?
>
>Been There, Done That, Got The Tee Shirt.
So you HAVE studied it? Where? When? For how long?
>
>>>Really? What judgement do you claim I made about you? Asking a question
>>>(Hint: It began with the words "Do you mean..." and ended with a
>>>question mark.) is not making a judgement. However, your lie that I have
>>>done so enables me to make one now.
>>
>>Lie? Please explain......
>
>That I made a judgement of you. I didn't. I asked a question.
You suggested astrologers and therapists made people dependent on them
for financial gain - since this is what I do I must by implication be
included. I see you have deleted my comment about this so I will repeat
it:-
So you definitely don't think that in my work as an astrologer and
counsellor I try to make people dependent on me so that I can make lots
of money?
>
>>>It is used as a money-making scam.
>>
>>It can be but then so can collecting for charities......
>
>Why do astrologers so often use this diversionary technique when
>challenged? (rhetorical)
Diversionary?! All sorts of occupations can be misused INCLUDING
astrology and charity work. Why should astrologers be more prone to
misuse than charity workers????
>
>>
>>>Its practitioners have a tendency to evade answering direct questions
>>>about it or making statements that are testable.
>>
>>Astrology is only testable in the same way that psychotherapy is
>>testable.
>
>Precisely.
So you think psychology is a load of fraudulent bunk as well:)) That
figures......
>
>> I was reading an article about quantum physics today.
>>Apparently the Universe constantly readjusts itself so that we can all
>>have free will - this is also true of astrology -
>
>Argument by spurious similarity.
Well, you see, I don't think it is spurious. Quantum physics is likely
(in my view) to some day give people like you the proof you require
about the most astonishing mysteries of the Universe - for example they
have already proved tbat matter can spontaneously relocate from A to B
regardless of distance and obstacles. Everything in the Universe is
inextricably linked and I think that some day we will even know what
'God' is. Along the way someone is bound to prove how astrology works.
I mean it's pretty difficult, even though it has been proved, to believe
that matter can disappear in one place and reappear in another, don't
you think?
>
>>so if I were to say to
>>you 'Your chart indicates that you have a unique opportunity for
>>psychological growth at the moment' you could either go with this change
>>and grow if you wanted to OR you could sit in your house and feel
>>terrible for a few months and at the end of it be in exactly the same
>>place as before the transit. It would be entirely up to you. Astrology
>>is NOT scientifically testable because the planets don't MAKE you do
>>anything - but if you want to you can USE the energies.
>
>For the sake of this argument I will go along with the notion of
>psychological growth.
>
>Just telling someone that they have a "unique opportunity" is often
>sufficient to get them off their butts to start doing something -- which
>is why the phrase is used so much in sales jargon.
This is true but I am constantly amazed that when people consult me I
almost always coincides with some heavy transit. In fact sometimes I am
completely bowled over by the way astrology works......
>
>Do you claim that a person isn't capable of psychological growth
>whatever planetary configuration exists?
Absolutely not. But if someone who has never been interested suddenly
becomes so OR they are feeling so bad that they don't know what is wrong
with them and BECAUSE OF THIS seek help then it is about 99% certain
that a transit of one of heavy planets is taking place. Surely you
learned about this in your study of astrology :)
>
>Statements such as the ones you made are testable, except that
>astrologers won't allow them to be tested. Start with agreed criteria
>for what constitutes "psychological growth" and double-blind the
>psychological testing and the astrological analysis. If astrology has
>anything to offer, then there should be a skew in the data.
:)))) Well you decide what constitutes 'psychological growth' and then
we'll talk about it further :)))))
I'll start you off:
1. A person who has achieved psychological growth does not dismiss
things he doesn't understand through prejudice.......
Sue
Stephen Tonkin
In article <AVwEvBAF...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>My experience of counsellors and therapists (with the exception of
>>therapists like physiotherapists, speech therapists and the like who do
>>get measurable, testable results) is that that once someone is collared
>>by one of these people, it is damned difficult to get away.
>
>Then tell me what your experience is.
Watching good friends get "hooked". One has now been involved in
psychotherapy (began with Reichian stuff -- bio-energetics? -- it was a
long time ago and my memory of the jargon is possibly faulty) for over
20 years and, if anything, has more hang-ups than before. (not just my
opinion)
>So you HAVE studied it? Where? When? For how long?
For about 6 years on a "more-than-dabble basis", after dabbling for
perhaps another 10; until about 15 years ago.
>>>Astrology is only testable in the same way that psychotherapy is
>>>testable.
>>
>>Precisely.
>
>So you think psychology is a load of fraudulent bunk as well:)) That
>figures......
No, you are twisting what I said (mind you, I'm getting used to that
technique of "argument" from astrologers, etc).
What I said "precisely" to was your statement that psychotherapy (NOT
psychology and, as one who claims to practice the former, you should be
aware of the distinction) and astrology are testable in the same way.
>>> I was reading an article about quantum physics today.
>>>Apparently the Universe constantly readjusts itself so that we can all
>>>have free will - this is also true of astrology -
>>
>>Argument by spurious similarity.
>
>Well, you see, I don't think it is spurious.
Your thoughts have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Appeal to
quantum physics as suppport for astrology is spurious in a number of
ways. Firstly, there is no demonstrable or testable connection between
the two. It is about as tenuous as finding currently used astrological
symbols in a Durer metalplate and citing this as evidence that Durer
metalplates symbolise astrological, not Christian, themes.
> Quantum physics is likely
>(in my view) to some day give people like you the proof you require
>about the most astonishing mysteries of the Universe - for example they
>have already proved tbat matter can spontaneously relocate from A to B
>regardless of distance and obstacles.
I think you need to study a bit more in order to understand what that is
about. The quantum level is very different to the macro level where the
wave-function breaks down. I'll argue this further with you over a
bottle of Chablis when you can spontaneously relocate your personal
matter into my living room.
> Everything in the Universe is
>inextricably linked and I think that some day we will even know what
>'God' is. Along the way someone is bound to prove how astrology works.
The "Pickwick argument" is not really a valid one, is it?
>I mean it's pretty difficult, even though it has been proved, to believe
>that matter can disappear in one place and reappear in another, don't
>you think?
At the quantum level, no, not particularly. At the macro-level, yes, but
then it hasn't happened at the macro level.
>This is true but I am constantly amazed that when people consult me I
>almost always coincides with some heavy transit.
I assume you mean "...it almost always ..."?
On that assumption, may I suggest that it could also be phrased "... it
doesn't always ..." and still be equally true? Gives you a different
perspective on it.
We also need to be clear about what you mean by "almost" -- a numerical
value on it, perhaps? -- and by "heavy". *Predefine* the transits you
consider to be heavy, work out the probability that one of these will
occur at any given time and see if that probability differs
significantly from the numerical value in the first sentence of this
paragraph. Publish your results.
>:)))) Well you decide what constitutes 'psychological growth' and then
>we'll talk about it further :)))))
Does this mean that you are serious about testing it?
You're the self-proclaimed expert -- I'll let you do that because,
frankly, I don't think it'll make a blind bit of difference.
>
>I'll start you off:
>
>1. A person who has achieved psychological growth does not dismiss
>things he doesn't understand through prejudice.......
>
2. A person who has achieved psychological growth will not accept things
through prejudice.......
--
Stephen Tonkin
Sue Armitage
In article <fKxkWTBU...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <AVwEvBAF...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
>psychotherapy (began with Reichian stuff -- bio-energetics? -- it was a
>long time ago and my memory of the jargon is possibly faulty) for over
>20 years and, if anything, has more hang-ups than before. (not just my
>opinion)
But is he happy? (by his standards, not yours) When you become more
self aware you do tend to leave your old friends behind and move on.
Presumably this person is capable of deciding what is right for him/her
and what isn't? What you are describing is your perception of the
situation when it is his perception that matters.
>
>>So you HAVE studied it? Where? When? For how long?
>
>For about 6 years on a "more-than-dabble basis", after dabbling for
>perhaps another 10; until about 15 years ago.
Now this is REALLY interesting. So you 'dabbled' for 10 years and
studied seriously for 6..... Whatever happened that turned you so anti?
What sort of astrology were you interested in? Did you study with the
Faculty?
>
>What I said "precisely" to was your statement that psychotherapy (NOT
>psychology and, as one who claims to practice the former, you should be
>aware of the distinction) and astrology are testable in the same way.
Psychotherapy is not separate from psychology. Maybe the distinction
you are thinking of is between psychotherapists and psychiatrists (who
have a medical degree) Only SOME branches of psychology are testable
e.g. Behaviourist and, in fact, some people who call themselves
psychotherapists practice this - although personally I feel that it is
better suited to training dogs and horses as human beings are far too
complex. It does have it's short term uses. Bit like your rope for
pulling people out of holes:)
>
>
>Your thoughts have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
Why? In experiments the tester's thoughts were found to have a bearing
on the results!
> Appeal to
>quantum physics as suppport for astrology is spurious in a number of
>ways. Firstly, there is no demonstrable or testable connection between
>the two.
OK. I can see the connection but you can't.
>
>I think you need to study a bit more in order to understand what that is
>about. The quantum level is very different to the macro level where the
>wave-function breaks down. I'll argue this further with you over a
>bottle of Chablis when you can spontaneously relocate your personal
>matter into my living room.
<sigh> You do drink a lot, don't you:) I KNOW I can't do that NOW but
then neither do I know why astrology works now. What I was saying was
that sometime in the future science WILL be able to prove both things
and quantum physics is SO incredible (parallel Universes etc.) that it
looks to me like it is going that way. No I am NOT an expert in quantum
physics!
>
>>This is true but I am constantly amazed that when people consult me I
>>almost always coincides with some heavy transit.
>
>I assume you mean "...it almost always ..."?
Yes. Nothing is 100% certain, even testable Behaviourism isn't 100%
certain!
>
>On that assumption, may I suggest that it could also be phrased "... it
>doesn't always ..." and still be equally true? Gives you a different
>perspective on it.
No, because it is 'almost always' not 'only sometimes' or
'occasionally'. I was being honest. I am trying to have a proper
discussion with you - not a point scoring exercise.
>
>We also need to be clear about what you mean by "almost" -- a numerical
>value on it, perhaps? -- and by "heavy". *Predefine* the transits you
>consider to be heavy, work out the probability that one of these will
>occur at any given time and see if that probability differs
>significantly from the numerical value in the first sentence of this
>paragraph. Publish your results.
Well, if you have studied astrology you will know what I mean by heavy
transits. If you have studied astrology you will also know that you
don't have to work out the 'probability' of a transit occuring you just
look it up in an ephemeris! This is somewhat basic. Are you sure you
have studied astrology?
>
>>:)))) Well you decide what constitutes 'psychological growth' and then
>>we'll talk about it further :)))))
>
>Does this mean that you are serious about testing it?
>
>You're the self-proclaimed expert -- I'll let you do that because,
>frankly, I don't think it'll make a blind bit of difference.
I don't think I said I was an expert...... You NEVER stop learning and I
have a long, long way to go. It was a bit silly suggesting defining
'psychological growth' really, wasn't it? You don't know how to do it
and I'm quite sure I don't........
>>
>>I'll start you off:
>>
>>1. A person who has achieved psychological growth does not dismiss
>>things he doesn't understand through prejudice.......
>>
>2. A person who has achieved psychological growth will not accept things
>through prejudice.......
Um, yes...... don't both those mean more or less the same?
Sue
Stephen Tonkin
In article <2XRjiBAGGGG0Ew$D...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue ArmitageNo.
>Whatever happened that turned you so anti?
I had a close brush with death; and woke up.
>Did you study with the Faculty?
If by "the Faculty" you mean that place in Sussex (Heathfield? -- memory
possibly faulty), no.
>>What I said "precisely" to was your statement that psychotherapy (NOT
>>psychology and, as one who claims to practice the former, you should be
>>aware of the distinction) and astrology are testable in the same way.
>
>Psychotherapy is not separate from psychology.
I did not say 'separate', I said 'distinct'. There are many
psychologists who do not indulge in psychotherapy
>What I was saying was
>that sometime in the future science WILL be able to prove both things
>and quantum physics is SO incredible (parallel Universes etc.) that it
>looks to me like it is going that way.
I see, the 'Pickwick principle' at work.
>>On that assumption, may I suggest that it could also be phrased "... it
>>doesn't always ..." and still be equally true? Gives you a different
>>perspective on it.
>
>No, because it is 'almost always' not 'only sometimes' or
>'occasionally'. I was being honest. I am trying to have a proper
>discussion with you - not a point scoring exercise.
Either it does always happen or it doesn't always happen. If it doesn't
always happen, there is nothing dishonest about saying so. It is a
different perspective, that is all.
>Well, if you have studied astrology you will know what I mean by heavy
>transits.
No, I don't. I had never heard the phrase until you used it. I know (or,
at least, I thought I knew -- see later) what a transit is. I haven't a
clue what a "heavy" transit is. If what you say about trying to have a
sensible discussion instead of point-scoring is actually true, why don't
you just tell me instead of trying to score points?
In fact, I'm not even sure I know what is meant by "transit" nowadays.
It used to mean the precise time when the planet was in conjunction,
opposition, square or trine with the natal planet, with no orb.
Nowadays it seems to be used to mean anything from planet being in
conjunct natal planet (no other aspects permitted) to a planet being in
any aspect with respect to the natal planet with an orb of up to 12 deg.
In the latter case it is obviously pretty difficult *not* to find a
transit somewhere.
> If you have studied astrology you will also know that you
>don't have to work out the 'probability' of a transit occuring you just
>look it up in an ephemeris!
Are you being deliberately obtuse? That statement is equivalent to
saying that if you know anything about drawing cards out of a pack, you
don't have to work out the probablity that it will be an ace, you just
draw the card. The point is that, if the given outcome occurs at a
significantly different frequency to its calculated probability, you may
have something worth investigating. If it doesn't, you probably don't.
>Um, yes...... don't both those mean more or less the same?
Different perspective.
--
Stephen Tonkin