alt.astrology.moderated
Gail Klein
alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
Gail Klein, astrologer
g...@panix.com
ju...@texas.net
Thanks, Gail - I was getting tired of the kooks/skeptics war...
although sometimes it's worth a grin.
Are you going to be the moderator?
Julie
widdershins
>
>alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
>Gail Klein, astrologer
>g...@panix.com
I sincerely applaud your Herculean efforts, Gail.
Gail Klein
>On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:30:02 -0400, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>>near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>>ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>>
>>Gail Klein, astrologer
>>g...@panix.com
>>
>Thanks, Gail - I was getting tired of the kooks/skeptics war...
>although sometimes it's worth a grin.
I hear you! :)
>Are you going to be the moderator?
We'll be having rotating moderators, once the newsgroup is settled
in. Thanks for your reply, Julie.
Gail
>Julie
--
Gail Klein, NCGR-I
g...@panix.com
jfred
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:30:02 -0400, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> >near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> >ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >
> >Gail Klein, astrologer
> >g...@panix.com
> >
> Thanks, Gail - I was getting tired of the kooks/skeptics war...
> although sometimes it's worth a grin.
> Are you going to be the moderator?
I'd like to nominate anonym as moderator!
--
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Gail Klein
>On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:30:02 -0400, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>>near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>>ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>>
>>Gail Klein, astrologer
>>g...@panix.com
>I sincerely applaud your Herculean efforts, Gail.
Thanks, but I still have one or two of those "7 Labors" to go... :)
PZ Myers
Not to discourage you, but it's 12.
Sherilyn
Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
Well done. Make sure an announcement goes to alt.config.
The justification section should make reference to the endless
flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
readers of the existence of the new group.
Where's the charter?
>
> Gail Klein, astrologer
> g...@panix.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jim Rogers
> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> Well done. Make sure an announcement goes to alt.config.
> The justification section should make reference to the endless
> flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
> readers of the existence of the new group.
>
> Where's the charter?
The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
_scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
the current version posted here, as well.
For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
Jim
Sherilyn
writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
>> Well done. Make sure an announcement goes to alt.config.
>> The justification section should make reference to the endless
>> flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
>> readers of the existence of the new group.
>>
>> Where's the charter?
>
>The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
>contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
>moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
>discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
>_scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
>the current version posted here, as well.
Max posted the last version to alt.config on Sept 25th.
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=394695459
Posts "skeptical of the general validity of astrology" are amongst thse
not permitted. There are "no restrictions regarding methods, systems,
criticisms, philosophies, or techniques", but I expect the moderators
to adopt a commonsense view.
>
>For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
>what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
>attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
>unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
>it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
>
>Jim
There is no vote in alt.*. If admins like it, or their customers ask
for it, they'll carry it.
I think it's a great step forward.
--
Sherilyn
Jodi Meadows
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Gail Klein wrote:
>
> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
> Gail Klein, astrologer
> g...@panix.com
>
>
that means no more losers, right?>
arctu...@earthlink.net
>
> Sherilyn wrote:
>
> > > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
> > The justification section should make reference to the endless
> > flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
> > readers of the existence of the new group.
> >
> > Where's the charter?
>
> The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
> contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
> moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
> discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
> _scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
> the current version posted here, as well.
>
> what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
> attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
> unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
> it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
>
> Jim
You are the troublemakers you sherilyn, ellis, anonym etc. will be
excluded I'm sure.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
J. White
> that means no more losers, right?
It means no more bullshit Eddie posts.
J. White
...looking forward to it.
J. White
> You are the troublemakers you sherilyn, ellis, anonym etc. will be
> excluded I'm sure.
90% of the crud you post will likely not make it.
Better find some other way than robo-posting to make your points.
I predict Ed won't last long there.
J. White
...who will last longer.
Wollmann, Edmond
> arctu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > You are the troublemakers you sherilyn, ellis, anonym etc. will be
> > excluded I'm sure.
> 90% of the crud you post will likely not make it.
I am not really interested, I could have made alt.astrology.metapsych
moderated but don't have the time to moderate it. I have a life.
> Better find some other way than robo-posting to make your points.
I will be making points for a long time J abuser White-I have a
publishing company:-)))
> I predict Ed won't last long there.
I don't think I will be going there, they probably don't want me there
anyway-because I am a critical thinker. Thats why you spinics call me
all sorts of fallacious names and harass me. Because you were proven to
be the frauds and can't take what you seem to think you dish out.
--
"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"
Sherilyn
arctu...@earthlink.net wrote:
[a.a.moderated]
>
> I am not really interested, I could have made alt.astrology.metapsych
> moderated but don't have the time to moderate it. I have a life.
Coming from someone who found time to make 70 postings on Christmas
Day, 1997, this claim should be taken with a pinch of salt.
>
> I don't think I will be going there, they probably don't want me there
> anyway-because I am a critical thinker.
If anyone didn't want you there, it would be because on USENET you often
brand yourself by your own actions as a spammer and flame bait. Debate
last month in de.alt.astrologie was significant in its mention of you as a
major disruptive influence, and it's no accident that you're on many people's
lists as a fanatic best ignored, having lost nine or more USENET posting
accounts for which you have nothing to blame but your own folly. I concur
with the gist of one perceptive posting to the German language newsgroup
that noted your success in turning a.a into a permanent flame war, attracting
the attentions of some of the lowest vermin on USENET, and driving out some
of the best astrologers.
Perhaps that's your way of coping with the people you really fear, who
knows?
But I hope you'll reconsider. This could be a chance for you to show what
you can do in an environment where posts generally critical of astrology are
not permitted, and where there will be no personal attacks on you or your
system of astrology (or from you, for that matter).
> Thats why you spinics call me
> all sorts of fallacious names and harass me. Because you were proven to
> be the frauds and can't take what you seem to think you dish out.
...
The above left in for its unintentional self-referential humor.
--
Sherilyn
Paul Schlyter
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> Sherilyn wrote:
>>> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>>>> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>>>> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>>
>>> Well done. Make sure an announcement goes to alt.config.
>>> The justification section should make reference to the endless
>>> flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
>>> readers of the existence of the new group.
>>>
>>> Where's the charter?
>>
>> The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
>> contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
>> moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
>> discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
>> _scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
>> the current version posted here, as well.
>>
>> For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
>> what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
>> attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
>> unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
>> it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
>>
>> Jim
>
> excluded I'm sure.
newsgroup. Not even you! What should be shut out are certain kinds
of posts, not certain kinds of people. So if you, anonym, etc, learn
to behave, you'll probably be welcome to post there.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
Gail Klein
>I certainly hope that no PERSON is permanently shut out of that
>newsgroup. Not even you! What should be shut out are certain kinds
>of posts, not certain kinds of people. So if you, anonym, etc, learn
>to behave, you'll probably be welcome to post there.
*Everyone* will be welcome to post. The posting rules will probably
appear both on the ng, and on the web archive. Posts must be in
accordance with the charter and rules, but everyone is welcome.
Gail
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
J. White
> > 90% of the crud you post will likely not make it.
>
> I am not really interested [...]
Then why respond goofball?
> [...], I could have made alt.astrology.metapsych
> moderated but don't have the time to moderate it. I have a life.
Well you are still taking in air, I'll grant you that.
<snip>
> > I predict Ed won't last long there.
>
> I don't think I will be going there, they probably don't want me there
> anyway-because I am a critical thinker.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read "nutcase".
> Thats why you spinics call me all sorts of fallacious names and harass me.
> Because you were proven to be the frauds and can't take what you seem to
> think you dish out.
Proven to whom? Yourself maybe?
J. White
Scorpio Rising
Roger L Satterlee
James Randi clones demanding proof that astrology exists!!!!
Rog
Gail Klein wrote in message <6vfvti$5...@panix2.panix.com>...
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>In article <361B05...@earthlink.net>, <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>
>
>I certainly hope that no PERSON is permanently shut out of that
>newsgroup.
I would certainly strongly support this. Anyone who posts within the
rules should be admitted.
Pam
--
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
It's October! LUPUS AWARNESS MONTH !!! Are you aware?
(if not try http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/lupuslinks.html)
widdershins
wrote:
> I can't wait to see this moderated newsgroup...:) Puhlease...no more
>James Randi clones demanding proof that astrology exists!!!!
>
>Rog
>
I'm quite convinced astrology exists. The presence of this newsgrope
confirms that. What I am not convinced about is its efficacy.
Proud Cahooter since 1998.
General nuisance, and proud new member of
the Skepticult.
Member #159-904378-909
My inner child is a mean little fucker.
Dreammin
Forget it guys! They'll find it! They'll ruin it!
Jo
AGroovyKat
drea...@aol.comofQpeace (Dreammin) wrote:
[Widdershins had written]
>>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:43:53 -0700, "Roger L Satterlee"
><rog...@ix.netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I can't wait to see this moderated newsgroup...:) Puhlease...no more
>>>James Randi clones demanding proof that astrology exists!!!!
>>>
>>>Rog
>>>
>>I'm quite convinced astrology exists. The presence of this newsgrope
>>confirms that. What I am not convinced about is its efficacy.
I am with you 100% here, Widdy. I, myself doubt the veracity of Astrological
claims especially concerning prediction.
>>Proud Cahooter since 1998.
>>
>>General nuisance, and proud new member of
>>the Skepticult.
>>
>>Member #159-904378-909
>>
>>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>Forget it guys! They'll find it! They'll ruin it!
>Jo
Dreammin,
It will be a MODERATED group. Which means that there will be moderators to
keep it clean of off-topic posts, flames, Spam, etc.
--
AGroovyKat
Scorpio Rising Club
Official Cahooters (TM)
(remove purrrrrr to Email, please)
"...and if you must put me in a box, make sure it's a big box - with lots of
windows and a door to walk thru..." ~Dan Bern - Jerusalem~
anonym™
>
> astrology+tarot
>
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Gail Klein wrote:
>
> >
> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >
> > g...@panix.com
> >
> >
> that means no more losers, right?>
No, not if astroscammers are to be included.
anonym™
>
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> >
> > Sherilyn wrote:
> >
> > > > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > > > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > > > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >
> > > The justification section should make reference to the endless
> > > flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
> > > readers of the existence of the new group.
> > >
> > > Where's the charter?
> >
> > The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
> > contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
> > moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
> > discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
> > _scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
> > the current version posted here, as well.
> >
> > For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
> > what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
> > attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
> > unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
> > it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
> >
> > Jim
>
> You are the troublemakers you sherilyn, ellis, anonym etc. will be
> excluded I'm sure.
I'm not so sure it's even a place I would care to venture.
In any case, posts aren't to be excluded by who wrote them,
it's what they contain, jerkoff.
Guess how fast your screed gets shitcanned, schmuck.
And quit posting off-topic to alt.config, you asshole.
.
anonym™
>
> J. White the disrupter of alt.astrology wrote:
>
> > arctu...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > > excluded I'm sure.
>
>
Grapes there were probably sour anyway, huh, Ed?
>I could have made alt.astrology.metapsych
> moderated but
Nobody would have shown up.
Like any party you've ever thrown, Wollmann.
>don't have the time to moderate it.
Funny, you have plenty of time to send hundreds of complaints
and quote Christ without attribution, so it seems like it's something YOU said.
I have a life.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
As Burgess Meredith growled:
"IT'S A *WASTE* OF LIFE!"
>
> > Better find some other way than robo-posting to make your points.
>
> I will be making points for a long time
THat's your right. DO you have to make the same ones over
and over again with robo-posts?
> J abuser White-I have a
> publishing company:-)))
That and 75 cents will get you some coffe at 7-11, schmuck.
>
> > I predict Ed won't last long there.
>
> I don't think I will be going there,
What a quitter.
> they probably don't want me there
> anyway-
You're not wanted here, either. SO why stay here?
>because I am a
major ASSHOLE.
> critical thinker.
Ed thinks criticizing everyone he comes in contact
with makes him a "critical thinker".
>Thats why you spinics call me
> all sorts of fallacious names
There's nothing fallacious about "Panty Head".
I agree that some may find it *salacious*...
>and harass me.
You've been HARASSED?
Quick!
CALL THE COPS!
Did you ever call the cops on Zadi, Edi?
> Because you were proven to
> be the frauds
We were?
In what post?
Where did we offer astrological counseling, fuck a client, and then run off
with her money?
> and can't take what you seem to think you dish out.
Well, if we only seem to think that we're dishing out something, what are you
dishing back?
What we *seem to think* we were dishing, or what we were *actually* dishing?
anonym™
..inquiring minds couldn't give two fucks in a rat's ass.
Dreammin
Subject: Re: alt.astrology.moderated
>
>drea...@aol.comofQpeace (Dreammin) wrote:
>
>[Widdershins had written]
>
>>>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:43:53 -0700, "Roger L Satterlee"
>><rog...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't wait to see this moderated newsgroup...:) Puhlease...no more
>>>>James Randi clones demanding proof that astrology exists!!!!
>>>>
>>>>Rog
>>>>
>>>I'm quite convinced astrology exists. The presence of this newsgrope
>>>confirms that. What I am not convinced about is its efficacy.
>
>I am with you 100% here, Widdy. I, myself doubt the veracity of Astrological
>claims especially concerning prediction.
>
>
>>>Proud Cahooter since 1998.
>>>
>>>General nuisance, and proud new member of
>>>the Skepticult.
>>>
>>>Member #159-904378-909
>>>
>>>My inner child is a mean little fucker.
>
>>Forget it guys! They'll find it! They'll ruin it!
>
>>Jo
>
>Dreammin,
>
>It will be a MODERATED group. Which means that there will be moderators to
>keep it clean of off-topic posts, flames, Spam, etc.
>AGroovyKat
>Scorpio Rising Club
It won't matter! They'll find a way!
They will destroy anything in their path!
They'll slither under the doorway with their bleeding ankles dragging behind
them.
They will sock puppet their way into a trolly post, and attack when we least
expect it.
Wait! Watch! Don't go there! They will dress up like Moderators!!
Jo
anonym™
>
> Wollmann the Goof adds:
>
> > > 90% of the crud you post will likely not make it.
> >
>
> Then why respond goofball?
>
> > [...], I could have made alt.astrology.metapsych
> > moderated but don't have the time to moderate it. I have a life.
>
> Well you are still taking in air, I'll grant you that.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > anyway-because I am a critical thinker.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> > Thats why you spinics call me all sorts of fallacious names and harass me.
> > Because you were proven to be the frauds and can't take what you seem to
> > think you dish out.
>
Then he would be lying to himself.
He's said MANY times that "nothing can ever be proven".
I have no idea why he continues to use the word "prove"
after having granted it no meaning.
Well, I do have ONE idea why...
anonym™
....he's a fucking KOOK!
.
.
EWollmann
denigrate and disrupt-this is one odf the regular spammers and abusers
here on alt.astrology and DOES not know me personally. Please get a grip
on your service and stop these abusers.
Thanks
Path:
newshub.sdsu.edu!news1.best.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
From:
primoc...@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology
Subject:
Ed Still Sucking Them In
Date:
Thu, 08 Oct 1998 05:48:25 GMT
Organization:
Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Lines:
54
Message-ID:
<6vhjn9$c87$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References:
<Pine.GSU.4.03.98100...@panix2.panix.com>
<6vdp7v$fbs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<6vdr0s$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>
<361B05...@earthlink.net> <361B10...@hooked.net>
<361B18...@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
203.24.54.81
X-Article-Creation-Date:
Thu Oct 08 05:48:25 1998 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)
X-Http-Proxy:
1.0 efc.com.au:3128 (Squid/1.2.beta20), 1.0
x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.100.100.59,
203.24.54.81
Xref:
newshub.sdsu.edu alt.astrology:230340
primoc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Well it's been a while since I looked in here, and sure enough, good 'ole
> Ed Wollmann is still sucking in the gullible. Ed, I've looked at your homepage
> and all that's in it, and I commend you on your outdoor lifestyle, but therein
> end the compliments. Frankly, your academic page is a joke. Did you take my
> advice from a couple of years back and wander into the physics faculty and ask
> someone there to critique your prehistoric belief system? I'll bet you didn't.
>
> You see folks, it really is pretty simple. Astrology was a pretty neat trick
> in the days when a shaman could gaze into the heavens and prognosticate from
> ignorance. Now we understand how much of the universe works, not all of it to
> be sure, but immensely more than we did then. Like a man hanging precariously
> by his fingers from a cliff, the shamans refuse to let go, lest their power
> be diminished. These emperors like Wollmann have no clothes, and their
> utterances, proofless and unverifiable, now seem infantile and pathetic.
>
> Ed is wedded to his prehistoric belief system, but to make matters worse, he
> derives social utility by charging for his utterances. For one who has a
> clinical background (well, a Mickey Mouse one, but we'll let that one pass
> for a minute) he should hang his head in shame for integrating his nonsense
> astrology into clinical practice. Still, there is one born every minute, a
> fool and his money......well we all know the aphorisms, don't we?
>
> No doubt Ed will cling to his sorry philosophy no matter how many rational
> minds prove him dead, dead wrong. He will still believe that he creates his
> own realities - in a metaphorical sense he's partially correct - in the
> literal sense he is as wrong as it is possible for a person to be. Only harm
> can come from confusing the metaphorical from the literal, a trick Ed pulls
> off with consumate ease.
>
> The words uttered long ago by ignorant men should be put in their correct
> historical context. To continue to believe that celestial objects,
> unimaginably distant from the earth, could influence human behaviour at the
> moment of birth is just about the most ridiculous conjecture a man can make.
> To construct an entire lifestyle around it almost staggers the imagination.
> Still, a guy has gotta earn a living some how. I'm sure he must really
> believe it; how else could he look at himself in the mirror each day without
> cringing with remorse?
>
> The fact remains that there is not one single beneficial utility that has
> sprung from astrology. The rational science that Ed loves to denigrate gave
> him the telescope that he peers through, the car that he drives and the
> computer he uses to publish his doggerel. Astrology has given us what, Ed,
> that benefits humanity ? - and please exclude astrological advice - that
> merely begs the question.
>
> Ed, spend a little time at San Diego U in the hard science faculties. Do a bit
> of math, some astronomy and maybe a little physics, if you can keep up. If you
> have your epiphany, do let us all know.
>
> Primo
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
J. White
>
> Youtr client is abusing dejanews service simply to try to defame harass,
> denigrate and disrupt-this is one odf the regular spammers and abusers
> here on alt.astrology and DOES not know me personally.
OH DEAR LORD!!!!!! <-note six
Are you telling us that someone DARED to post to Usenet without first
KNOWING YOU?
CALL THE MARINES!
CALL NATO!!
Or...
We could simply note that BLOWHARD Ed "Spam" Wollman did not answer ONE
SINGLE POINT.
Ed, who claims to be able to defeat every argument, runs AGAIN.
Why am I not surprised?
J. White
...thats a rhetorical question Ed.
primoc...@my-dejanews.com
Chris Haney
>
> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
> g...@panix.com
Just passing through this NG, I don't really believe in astrology but I
*was* interested - I have never seen so many sad obssesed psychos in my
life, and very few posting actually to do with astrology. Who are these
no-neck cretins? won't be back - byeeee
anonym™
Chris Haney wrote:
Get lost, but good, fuckface.
Jim Rogers
> > The proto-charter I saw not long ago (off-line) had a very unfortunate
> > contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
> > moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
> > discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
> > _scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
> > the current version posted here, as well.
> >
> > For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
> > what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
> > attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
> > unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
> > it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
> excluded I'm sure.
I can't imagine why you would care, Eddy. I was directly solicited for
input, and the above is my final, offered publicly for others'
consideration (particularly those in charge of composing the charter and
moderating). You weren't asked at all, so I can understand your
chagrine.
If the goal of the new NG is for practicing astrologers and aspiring
students to flee this cacophony to some spam-free, flame-free, credulous
refuge purely sympathetic to astrology, no doubts allowed, that's
entirely their business and I won't be much interested in it, so
"exclusion" doesn't bother me any more than being "excluded" from your
personal inner circle of panty-heads. I have no skin in that game.
I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or the
other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
"skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
"validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at all
between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under test.
If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the ambiguity,
all I can do is say "I told you so."
Jim
David
very little indeed.If it goes ahead, the quality of participation will
be what will make or break this effort. To this end I want to publicly
commend Gail Klein for taking the initiative to overlook some minor
squabbling and moving ahead with this.Sometimes will is not to be denied
and hopefully this will result in a constructive exchange for all who
choose to be involved since no one is intrisically excluded as far as I
have seen. The idea of a newsgroup dedicated to this subject should
bring pleasure to all who "choose" to embrace it's possibilities and
stay within the bounds of civility in the process.
Dave
someday this will all make sense
godsh...@my-dejanews.com
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:> >> Sherilyn wrote:
> >>> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> >>>> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> >>>> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >>
> >>> The justification section should make reference to the endless
> >>> flame wars in a.a. I'll update the a.a posting FAQ to apprise
> >>> readers of the existence of the new group.
> >>>
> >>> Where's the charter?
> >>
> >> contradiction, which the author(s) ought to clean up lest the
> >> moderator's job be unnecessarily nerve-wracking. It attempted to outlaw
> >> discussion of "validity" but allow discussion of "testing," including
> >> _scientific_ testing. Otherwise it looked good to me! I'd like to see
> >> the current version posted here, as well.
I just read the charter that Sherilyn was kind enough to provide a URL for,
and I have to agree with Jim's comments. I appreciate that the charter
allows for scientific testing. It is a good sign and a nice effort to
compromise. Unfortunately, I don't think that it can be split that easily.
The idea of scientifically testing a theory assumes that the person(s)
performing the test is skeptical of the results. Else you end up with bias,
instead of the desired objectivity. By skeptical, I don't mean a mindset
that completely against the possibility of astrology being valid, just one
that questions it obectively.
I think we would be better off taking the "scientific testing" phrase out of
the charter and later forming an unmoderated alt.astrology.validity
newsgroup. We can always make an alt.astrology.validity.moderated in the
future if needed.
Given the choice between a little validity and no validity, I think the
alt.astrology.moderated charter should choose no validity, in order to keep
the moderation easier. Unless the writers of the charter wish to allow
validity as a topic.
> >>
> >> For my two cents, it seems clear that "validity" discussions are not
> >> what's polluting this NG into a worthless mess, but all the personal
> >> attacks, which are dirt-simple to moderate away (as are posts wholly
> >> unrelated to astrology). In the incarnation I last saw, I can't vote for
> >> it, but won't stand in anyone's way, either.
> >>
> >> Jim
I mostly agree with Jim, here. Although I would vote for it in it's present
form, since I feel the desire for a moderated group outweighs the possible
moderation headaches. Presumably if it were a problem, they could amend the
charter at a later date.
> >
> > You are the troublemakers you sherilyn, ellis, anonym etc. will be
> > excluded I'm sure.
>
> I certainly hope that no PERSON is permanently shut out of that
> newsgroup. Not even you! What should be shut out are certain kinds
> of posts, not certain kinds of people. So if you, anonym, etc, learn
> to behave, you'll probably be welcome to post there.
I agree. I hope that this will be the case. Didn't the charter say that
some people might be excluded out of hand if their actions dictated such a
course of action? I would hope that they would take that phrase out of the
charter, too. I feel that the posts should be reviewed on their content and
not their source.
Paul Rumelhart
AGroovyKat
C4A wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 18:58:52 -0600, Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~~~p.com>
>surprised and enlightened us with...
>
>
>>If the goal of the new NG is for practicing astrologers and aspiring
>>students to flee this cacophony to some spam-free, flame-free, credulous
>>refuge purely sympathetic to astrology, no doubts allowed, that's
>>entirely their business and I won't be much interested in it, so
>>"exclusion" doesn't bother me any more than being "excluded" from your
>>personal inner circle of panty-heads. I have no skin in that game.
>>
>>I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or the
>>other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
>>"skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
>>"validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at all
>>between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under test.
>>If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the ambiguity,
>>all I can do is say "I told you so."
>>
>>Jim
>
>More or less up to Gail Klein at this point... I tend to agree with
>you.
>
>Ken
This should be addressed before the group is finalized. If the whole reason
for creating a moderated group is to keep the flames out and the focus towards
friendly Astrology, then the moderators need to distinguish the exact ground
rules for the tolerance of skeptism/validity/testing arguments.
The moderators cannot disclude anyone for their personality alone. Not who,
but what will be allowed.
I'll repeat as written above (by Jim):
*exclude "testing," or include "skepticism"*
It's ambiguous at best.
AGroovyKat
John Pat Patton <jp...@hubwest.com> wrote:
>if censorship was illegal weed all be illegal
weed is illegal, John Pat ......
;o)
Gail Klein
>C4A wrote:
Thanks for the input. As far as I can tell, there's a difference
between some astrologers, who know what is and what isn't verifiable
within astrology, discussing methods of testing, and non-astrologers,
discussing it, who are unable to consider valid means of testing.
Unless you are familiar with how a thing works, it becomes difficult to
show that it *does* work. [And, please! Don't toss me that old chestnut
about "you don't know how a TV works (or a car, or a computer, or
the internet, etc.) but you use it anyway, right?" That's a very
poor argument because, still, one must know to at least turn on
a power switch. And some skeptics here (and elsewhere) mainly
have not reached even that point of entry in their analogous
quest to get astrology to "work".]
Testing is a valid field of pursuit for
astrologers who are interested in it. Skepticism is altogether
different. Astrologers already know from personal study and experience
that astrology works, this isn't an issue of skepticism, but of
devising ways to portray in research studies the ways in which
astrology works. If I wanted a proof of the "Theory of Relativity",
I would not call in an English Lit major or a lawyer to show me it. I'd
ask a science teacher. Thus, if I want to find means for documenting
astrology's efficacy, I would confer with other astrologers, not
people unstudied in astrology. Skepticism already has its own
newsgroup, sci.skeptic. And presumably skepticism will also still
be a topic of discussion here on aa. It is justifiable to allow
astrologers to discuss all issues pertaining to the topic and
field of astrology amongst themselves. However, I see Jim Rogers'
point that it would be very difficult to keep such discussions
from degenerating into the types of validity arguments that
circulate endlessly here, so most probably the charter will be changed.
Gail
>--
>AGroovyKat
>Scorpio Rising Club
>Official Cahooters (TM)
>(remove purrrrrr to Email, please)
>"...and if you must put me in a box, make sure it's a big box - with lots of
>windows and a door to walk thru..." ~Dan Bern - Jerusalem~
Gail Klein
Thanks, Dave. I think the group will be a very constructive thing, once
it's available.
Gail
>someday this will all make sense
--
Gail Klein, NCGR-I
g...@panix.com
Paul Schlyter
> I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or
> the other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
> "skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
> "validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at
> all between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under
> test. If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the
> ambiguity, all I can do is say "I told you so."
"testing" but not "validity" in that newsgroup: to ensure that only
tests which confirm astrology is included in the discussion.
Note that Gail earlier has adopted the view that the failure of all
those controlled tests to verify astrology is not due to some
shortcoming of astrology, but instead due to deficiencies of the test
methodology !!! Gail has proposed other ways to test astrology,
which she now says she considers valid. If these tests actually were
performed, and if astrology yet another time would be refuted, I
expect Gail to follow a similar route by declaring that those tests
too have deficiences in their methodology...
This is what distinguishes religion from science: in science
one accepts negative test results, while in religion they are
explained away, to keep the faith intact.
--
Paul Schlyter
>>I'll repeat as written above (by Jim):
>
>>*exclude "testing," or include "skepticism"*
>
>>It's ambiguous at best.
>
> Thanks for the input. As far as I can tell, there's a difference
> between some astrologers, who know what is and what isn't verifiable
> within astrology, discussing methods of testing, and non-astrologers,
> discussing it, who are unable to consider valid means of testing.
> Unless you are familiar with how a thing works, it becomes difficult to
> show that it *does* work. [And, please! Don't toss me that old chestnut
> about "you don't know how a TV works (or a car, or a computer, or
> the internet, etc.) but you use it anyway, right?" That's a very
> poor argument because, still, one must know to at least turn on
> a power switch. And some skeptics here (and elsewhere) mainly
> have not reached even that point of entry in their analogous
> quest to get astrology to "work".]
statistics analysis is necessary. Many skeptics don't know how to do
this, that's correct, but most astrologers are happily ignorant about
it too -- that's why they can delude themselves into believing it
"works" from too small samples, biased selections, or any of those
many pitfalls there are to those who don't know statistics. This
judgement is best left to a profesional statistican.
> Testing is a valid field of pursuit for astrologers who are interested
> in it. Skepticism is altogether different. Astrologers already know
> from personal study and experience that astrology works,
is flat: just climb a hilltop with a good view and look around! Of
course, only people who aren't blind can do this....
> this isn't an issue of skepticism,
FYI: this isn't testing, it's self-delusion.
> If I wanted a proof of the "Theory of Relativity", I would not call
> in an English Lit major or a lawyer to show me it. I'd ask a science
> teacher.
to show why relativity works. Try a physicist instead, preferably a
researcher.
> Thus, if I want to find means for documenting astrology's efficacy,
> I would confer with other astrologers, not people unstudied in
> astrology.
you turn to the Flat Earth Society as your most reliable source of
information?
> Skepticism already has its own newsgroup, sci.skeptic. And
> presumably skepticism will also still be a topic of discussion here
> on aa. It is justifiable to allow astrologers to discuss all issues
> pertaining to the topic and field of astrology amongst themselves.
> However, I see Jim Rogers' point that it would be very difficult to
> keep such discussions from degenerating into the types of validity
> arguments that circulate endlessly here, so most probably the charter
> will be changed.
those refutals of astrology, you cannot allow testing as a valid
subject of discussion there. I mean, you've already made up your
mind, so why bother testing at all?
Gail Klein
>In article <6vjn4b$g...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~~~p.com> wrote:
>
>> I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or
>> the other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
>> "skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
>> "validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at
>> all between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under
>> test. If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the
>> ambiguity, all I can do is say "I told you so."
>
>There is one possible reason why astrologers may want to include
>"testing" but not "validity" in that newsgroup: to ensure that only
>tests which confirm astrology is included in the discussion.
>
>Note that Gail earlier has adopted the view that the failure of all
>those controlled tests to verify astrology is not due to some
>shortcoming of astrology, but instead due to deficiencies of the test
>methodology !!! Gail has proposed other ways to test astrology,
>which she now says she considers valid. If these tests actually were
>performed, and if astrology yet another time would be refuted, I
>expect Gail to follow a similar route by declaring that those tests
>too have deficiences in their methodology...
>
>This is what distinguishes religion from science: in science
>one accepts negative test results, while in religion they are
>explained away, to keep the faith intact.
:) Good heavens, Paul, if astrology were something I'd need to
have "faith" in, rather than simply knowing (via study & observation)
unequivocally that it works, I'd have packed it in long ago.
Faith isn't actually one of my strong points.
The tests are yet to be devised which will "prove" astrology works;
just as with all other working, yet unexplained and unproven, phenomena.
Gail
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
Roger L Satterlee
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <6vl04d$q18$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>In article <6vjn4b$g...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~~~p.com>
wrote:
>
>> I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or
>> the other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
>> "skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
>> "validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at
>> all between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under
>> test. If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the
>> ambiguity, all I can do is say "I told you so."
>
>There is one possible reason why astrologers may want to include
>"testing" but not "validity" in that newsgroup: to ensure that only
>tests which confirm astrology is included in the discussion.
>
>Note that Gail earlier has adopted the view that the failure of all
>those controlled tests to verify astrology is not due to some
>shortcoming of astrology, but instead due to deficiencies of the test
>methodology !!! Gail has proposed other ways to test astrology,
>which she now says she considers valid. If these tests actually were
>performed, and if astrology yet another time would be refuted, I
>expect Gail to follow a similar route by declaring that those tests
>too have deficiences in their methodology...
>
>This is what distinguishes religion from science: in science
>one accepts negative test results, while in religion they are
>explained away, to keep the faith intact.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
You two still don't understand that you are calling and *art* a religion
or a science...Like linear perspective in the most surreal painting,
*perspective* can be *tested* as a function of one's subjective responses to
the *symbolized reality*, and it can be improved upon in the art of
astrology as it has been in the art of painting...I think your perspective
could use some work here guy's...:)
Rog
Paul Schlyter
> :) Good heavens, Paul, if astrology were something I'd need to
> have "faith" in, rather than simply knowing (via study & observation)
> unequivocally that it works, I'd have packed it in long ago.
> Faith isn't actually one of my strong points.
high hill nearby) they "know" that the Earth is flat....
> The tests are yet to be devised which will "prove" astrology works;
> just as with all other working, yet unexplained and unproven, phenomena.
impossible to make a proper test which show something works when it
doesn't -- as it should be.
sba...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
> The tests are yet to be devised which will "prove" astrology works;
> just as with all other working, yet unexplained and unproven, phenomena.
Sorry to nitpick, and I realize this is tangential to the thread, but you
seem to be saying:
(1) At the current time, there are no tests that prove astrology works.
(2) Astrology works.
How do you get to (2), given that (1) is true?
--
Scott Baxter
Dave Smerf
> <snip>
Why don't you just go and play with yourself, if they've dropped yet -
you sad pathetic no-life little creep.
Dave Smerf
>
> Jodi Meadows wrote:
> >
> > astrology+tarot
> >
> >
> > >
> > > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> > >
> > > g...@panix.com
> > >
> > >
> > that means no more losers, right?>
>
> No, not if astroscammers are to be included.
Well if there are no losers on the new group YOU won't be allowed in
then eh?
Dave Smerf
> <snip>
>
> Where's the charter?
> >
> > Gail Klein, astrologer
> > g...@panix.com
> >
> >
What, you want to check out if 'dead baby' jokes will be welcome on the
new group??
Jim Rogers
> g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
> > The tests are yet to be devised which will "prove" astrology works;
> > just as with all other working, yet unexplained and unproven, phenomena.
> Sorry to nitpick, and I realize this is tangential to the thread, but you
> seem to be saying:
>
> (1) At the current time, there are no tests that prove astrology works.
> (2) Astrology works.
>
> How do you get to (2), given that (1) is true?
This is about the most concise phrasing of the problem I've seen
recently. It is, in a nutshell, why IMHO Gail should allow skeptical
posts in the charter, as that makes for some of the more intellectually
challenging discussion. She can exclude skepticism if she so prefers,
but in that case ought to also exclude all discussion of "testing," for
consistency. I probably just won't participate if she does so, but I'm
not in her primary target audience, anyway. I don't participate in
Panty-Head's vanity NG, either; simply no interest.
Best of luck to Gail, in any case, and it's good of her to take on the
task.
Jim
anonym™
pde...@hotmail.com
arctu...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Youtr client is abusing dejanews service simply to try to defame harass,
> denigrate and disrupt-this is one odf the regular spammers
DejaNews author profile shows that that this correspondent has posted twice
to alt.astrology, so how does that rate him as *regular*? Where is your proof
that you have been defamed or denigrated? Oh wait on, proof is for fools,
isn't it Ed, so you would not have any, would you?
There is one thing that Wollmann does *not* seem to believe in - free speech.
I've read Primo's article, and would really like to see Ed's rebuttal.
It's just pathetic the way that Wollmann runs off screaming to the ISP of
anyone that happens to disagree with him. Mr Primo, if Wollmann's enquiry to
DejaNews causes you the least concern, inconvenience or whatever, please feel
free to call on me for any support you may need. I have a good idea that
there are quite a few here who would also do the same.
Peter D
alan williams
pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <6vl5si$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > :) Good heavens, Paul, if astrology were something I'd need to
> > have "faith" in, rather than simply knowing (via study & observation)
> > unequivocally that it works, I'd have packed it in long ago.
> > Faith isn't actually one of my strong points.
>
> Flat Earth believers do the same thing: by observation (from e.g. a
> high hill nearby) they "know" that the Earth is flat....
Recent research indicates that at about 10,500BC the earth was
indeed flat, since at that point in time the locations of the
Giza pyramids and the temples at Angkhor Wat lay on an exactly
straight line. Since then the earth has been evolving towards
a state of roundness, a process which is nearly complete.
Evidence of this primordial flatitude can still be seen; indeed,
the earth is still slightly flat at the poles and still has a slight
equatorial bulge. Estimates suggest that these features will have
disappeared entirely during the next 3,000 years or so, after which
the whole process will go into reverse.
Other planets in the solar system also display their flatitudinous
origins, in the form of planetary rings. These are composed of dust
particles and minor debris thrown off the edge of the planetary
disc during the flat phase, due to an excess of centrifugal force
over gravity at the disc perimeter. The inner planets, however,
including the earth, were stripped of their rings by the solar wind.
The asteroid belt is an interesting example of a planet that was
perturbed by Jovian gravitation during its flat phase, causing
fractures in its disc leading to its disaggregation, before the
processes that lead to roundness could take hold.
[...]
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
> WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
--
Alan Williams ... alco{at}pentile.demon.co.uk
Anyone already wearing a red carnation need not reply to this post.
Paul Schlyter
Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You two still don't understand that you are calling and *art* a religion
> or a science...Like linear perspective in the most surreal painting,
> *perspective* can be *tested* as a function of one's subjective responses to
> the *symbolized reality*, and it can be improved upon in the art of
> astrology as it has been in the art of painting...I think your perspective
> could use some work here guy's...:)
Fine with me -- I could even agree with you. However, if astrology
is just an art, then the importance if the accuracy of natal data
will vanish - why? Because claiming that natal data must be accurate
is a TESTABLE claim, which immediately brings astrology outside the
realm of art....
Roger L Satterlee
The mechanics of a natal chart are like the mechanics of photography:
the art of photography is dependent on the mechanics of the medium being
correct, but becoming an artist--experiencing the art itself--is in no way
guaranteed by such objective precision alone. Your expressed desire here,
figuratively speaking, to change the aperture and shutter speed settings, so
as to challenge (or impede) the aspiring artist here, seems a case sour
grapes, I think...:) I think an astrologer's performance is usually poor
even in the best conditions; like the aspiring photographer. How many
artistic photographs do we really achieve on a roll of film...how many of us
take nothing but snapshots all our lives...but, why be one of the people who
are simply content with drawing mustaches on advertising photos in the
subway...:)
Rog
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <6vn3da$g84$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
Paul Schlyter
alan williams <al...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6vla3v$hov$1...@merope.saaf.se>
> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>> In article <6vl5si$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> :) Good heavens, Paul, if astrology were something I'd need to
>>> have "faith" in, rather than simply knowing (via study & observation)
>>> unequivocally that it works, I'd have packed it in long ago.
>>> Faith isn't actually one of my strong points.
>>
>> Flat Earth believers do the same thing: by observation (from e.g. a
>> high hill nearby) they "know" that the Earth is flat....
>
> Recent research indicates that at about 10,500BC the earth was
> indeed flat,
Apparently there's no idea weird enough to not have at least some
loons believing in it.....
> since at that point in time the locations of the Giza pyramids
> and the temples at Angkhor Wat lay on an exactly straight line.
*any* two points....
Now, try to bring up THREE points which at one time "lay on an
exactly straight line" -- and please provide some real evidence,
if you do....
[ remainder of nonsense snipped ]
Paul Schlyter
Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote in message <6vn3da$g84$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>>In article <6vlcnr$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You two still don't understand that you are calling and *art* a religion
>>> or a science...Like linear perspective in the most surreal painting,
>>> *perspective* can be *tested* as a function of one's subjective responses
>>> to the *symbolized reality*, and it can be improved upon in the art of
>>> astrology as it has been in the art of painting...I think your
>>> perspective could use some work here guy's...:)
>>
>>So you claim astrology is merely an art?
>>
>>Fine with me -- I could even agree with you. However, if astrology
>>is just an art, then the importance if the accuracy of natal data
>>will vanish - why? Because claiming that natal data must be accurate
>>is a TESTABLE claim, which immediately brings astrology outside the
>>realm of art....
>
> The mechanics of a natal chart are like the mechanics of photography:
> the art of photography is dependent on the mechanics of the medium being
> correct, but becoming an artist--experiencing the art itself--is in no way
> guaranteed by such objective precision alone. Your expressed desire here,
> figuratively speaking, to change the aperture and shutter speed settings, so
> as to challenge (or impede) the aspiring artist here, seems a case sour
> grapes, I think...:) I think an astrologer's performance is usually poor
> even in the best conditions; like the aspiring photographer. How many
> artistic photographs do we really achieve on a roll of film...how many of us
> take nothing but snapshots all our lives...but, why be one of the people who
> are simply content with drawing mustaches on advertising photos in the
> subway...:)
If you set a grossly errnoeous aperture/shutter speed combination when
taking a photograph, you're guaranteed to get a very bad photograph,
no matter whether you're an amateur or a pro.
If you make a chart interpretation on a chart based on grossly
erroneous natal data, your chance of getting a good reading is just
as good as if you use correct natal data, as long as you sincerely
believe the grossly erroneous natal data is correct and treat it as
such. Numerous tests have shown that during double blind tests,
chart readings based on correct natal data are indistingusihable
from readings based on grossly erroneous natal data.
Photographs which are grossly under- or overexposed are *easily*
distinguishable from photographs which are correctly exposed.
E. Wollmann
> In <19981008222122...@ng147.aol.com> agroo...@aol.compurrrrrr (AGroovyKat) writes:
> >C4A wrote:
> >>On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 18:58:52 -0600, Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~~~p.com>
> >>surprised and enlightened us with...
> >>>If the goal of the new NG is for practicing astrologers and aspiring
> >>>students to flee this cacophony to some spam-free, flame-free, credulous
> >>>refuge purely sympathetic to astrology, no doubts allowed, that's
> >>>entirely their business and I won't be much interested in it, so
> >>>"exclusion" doesn't bother me any more than being "excluded" from your
> >>>personal inner circle of panty-heads. I have no skin in that game.
This is the kind of spin and garbage off topic I hope is excluded.
> >>>I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or the
> >>>other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
> >>>"skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
> >>>"validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at all
> >>>between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under test.
> >>>If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the ambiguity,
> >>>all I can do is say "I told you so."
If you do not put "no arguments about testing or the validity of
ASTROLOGY in general" Gail-you will forever regret it. I wrote the
charter for metapsych correctly but no one would help me enforce
it-which they could have.
> >>More or less up to Gail Klein at this point... I tend to agree with
> >>you.
Jim wants an out to get on there and try to turn the conversation away
from astrological methods etc. Sure, as astrologers we all have
different ideas about what METHODS we use or believe valid or
useful-thats fine, but we all agree astrology itself is useful and
valid-thats the point.
Do NOT listen to sherilyn or any of these known persons who have driven
this off topic engine for 5 years now-I telling you.
> >This should be addressed before the group is finalized. If the whole reason
> >for creating a moderated group is to keep the flames out and the focus towards
The whole point is to keep spinics validity questions out -which LEADS
to flames, because when they have been refuted by me they turned to
calling me "panty-head" etc.- if you don't do that you will be sorry.
> >friendly Astrology, then the moderators need to distinguish the exact ground
> >rules for the tolerance of skeptism/validity/testing arguments.
There should be none, we can all agree that even some astrologers use
sidereal and some tropical, but we still agree ONE OR THE OTHER
valid-cynics think the whole topic needs trashing-and if you let them in
you will have defeated your whole purpose and there will be no
peace-don't be decieved by these liars.
> >The moderators cannot disclude anyone for their personality alone.
No, they should not, but upon the posters insistence of questioning the
basic premise we as astrologers ALL agree on-astrology is a valid and
useful subject FOR discussion. Thats how they should be excluded-we all
as astrologers want to discuss ways to test astrology's validity to help
make our case-that should be allowed. But arguments to "prove" its
INVALIDITY MUST be excluded. Even though we know there are tests that
are configered to demonstrate its invalidity, these serve astrologers to
show them what needs to be changed to transform that and demonstrate its
VALIDITY. Ask anyone who does research at a university, it is common
knowledge that data can be MADE TO FIT. So don't allow this made to fit
argumentation to distract from the astrology discussion.
Not who,
> >but what will be allowed.
> >I'll repeat as written above (by Jim):
> >*exclude "testing," or include "skepticism"*
Exclude validity arguments, skepticism is healthy *I* am a skeptic,
thats why they hate me-because validity is up to the astrological
practitioner and the clients served-not JIM or any other spinic-who
really are quite right of the mainstream beliefs in this anyway.
> >It's ambiguous at best.
> Thanks for the input. As far as I can tell, there's a difference
> between some astrologers, who know what is and what isn't verifiable
> within astrology,
There is VERY little that has been demonstrated in that way-and should
NOT be a part of this new group.
> discussing methods of testing, and non-astrologers,
> discussing it, who are unable to consider valid means of testing.
They are not able to because they have not taken the time to learn the
subject this IS evidence of their intention all BY ITSELF.
> Unless you are familiar with how a thing works, it becomes difficult to
> show that it *does* work. [And, please! Don't toss me that old chestnut
> about "you don't know how a TV works (or a car, or a computer, or
> the internet, etc.) but you use it anyway, right?" That's a very
> poor argument because, still, one must know to at least turn on
> a power switch. And some skeptics here (and elsewhere) mainly
> have not reached even that point of entry in their analogous
> quest to get astrology to "work".]
True, no academician would ever have the guts to try to spin that they
could peer review something they know nothing about.
> Testing is a valid field of pursuit for
> astrologers who are interested in it. Skepticism is altogether
> different. Astrologers already know from personal study and experience
> that astrology works, this isn't an issue of skepticism, but of
> devising ways to portray in research studies the ways in which
> astrology works. If I wanted a proof of the "Theory of Relativity",
> I would not call in an English Lit major or a lawyer to show me it.
True.
I'd
> ask a science teacher. Thus, if I want to find means for documenting
> astrology's efficacy, I would confer with other astrologers, not
> people unstudied in astrology. Skepticism already has its own
> newsgroup, sci.skeptic. And presumably skepticism will also still
> be a topic of discussion here on aa. It is justifiable to allow
> astrologers to discuss all issues pertaining to the topic and
> field of astrology amongst themselves. However, I see Jim Rogers'
> point that it would be very difficult to keep such discussions
> from degenerating into the types of validity arguments that
> circulate endlessly here, so most probably the charter will be changed.
> Gail
Thanks for allowing my .02, I think you are on the right path. Good
luck,
Ed
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com
Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
> Gail Klein, astrologer
> g...@panix.com
May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
Ann S.
anonym™
>
> In article <Pine.GSU.4.03.98100...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >
> > Gail Klein, astrologer
> > g...@panix.com
>
> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
Yes.
anonym™
>
> In article <362008F9...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
> writes
> alt.astrology?
What are the perks?
Sherilyn
--
Sherilyn
Gail Klein
>In article <Pine.GSU.4.03.98100...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>>
>> Gail Klein, astrologer
>> g...@panix.com
>May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
Gail
>Ann S.
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tony Tiger
Hi Gail, great idea... I mean, if you had a magic wand and waved it
over alt.astrology to stop the flames.. it just would not be the
same. Just check the post almost doubled since the return of the
Wollerman (and I don't think it is all Ed). A post for serious
astrology discussion, of events and ect. seems to be in order. Plus
no one is going to pull the plug on alt.astrology... It something even
gererates more posting that the alt.sex:)) But as it has grown, some
of the flamers have gained an advantage because it is just easier to
post on fluff...
Plus there is some really funny stuff. I sometimes wonder what would
be the copyrights on something where say one just lifted some of the
disscussion from the usenet and just published it. (Perhaps hear from
Ed' lawyer on this one:))
Do keep up the good work and please keep us posted.
tt
anonym™
They would be fully enforceable.
>where say one just lifted some of the
> disscussion from the usenet and just published it.
The copyrights would be the same as with any other written creation; they are
owned by the creator.
> (Perhaps hear from
> Ed' lawyer on this one:))
And mine.
Don't even think about it.
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>
> I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
> all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
> it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
latitude of the Internet? :-)))
Also: the degeneration of a.a in recent years, could that in your
opinion have been avoided if some other birth time had been
selected for a.a ?
Sherilyn
>In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>>In article <Pine.GSU.4.03.98100...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>>> near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>>> ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>
>>May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>
>I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
>all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
>it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
Hmm, better be careful how you go about consulting about this. Don't
want anybody to get their nose out of joint. ;)
--
Sherilyn
Hunter Rose
>>> So, you decided to take up the joint post of "controller" of
>>> alt.astrology?
>Unquestioning obedience from hundreds of nubile astro-chicks,
Not worth it, I don't think.
Not the nubile part.
>the sunsign pendant of your choice in platinum,
Neon!
>unlimited access to alt.astrology's crack legal team,
I read that as Legal Crack Team.
>and 50% of the royalty payments from Stapleton's Numbers.
He's stapling his member?
#mxr /* Ouch. */
--
| L'audace! Toujours l'audace! moc.gnirpsdnim@rimim=xam 6 |
| Henceforthandforthwithlyyourfoundingducksdidoscillatecheesily |
| "We're cooked, but Vive l'Empereur all the same." |
Sherilyn
writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <362008F9...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
>> writes
>> >ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>> >> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>> >> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>> >> >
>> >> > g...@panix.com
>> >>
>> >> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>> >
>>
>> So, you decided to take up the joint post of "controller" of
>> alt.astrology?
>
>What are the perks?
Unquestioning obedience from hundreds of nubile astro-chicks, the
sunsign pendant of your choice in platinum, unlimited access to
alt.astrology's crack legal team, and 50% of the royalty payments from
Stapleton's Numbers.
--
Sherilyn
Gail Klein
>In article <6vq0ov$g...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>>> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>>
>> I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
>> all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
>> it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
>
>Isn't at least the expected birth-PLACE known by now? Or are you
>considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
>be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
>latitude of the Internet? :-)))
:) It still requires an action, and that is carried out by a person
at a particular geographical place.
>Also: the degeneration of a.a in recent years, could that in your
>opinion have been avoided if some other birth time had been
>selected for a.a ?
I think so; alt.tarot is an example of a newsgroup relatively
unplagued by the level of "noise" on alt.astrology. I should
probably try to find their chart. :)
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
anonym™
>
> In article <362039B4...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
> writes
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <362008F9...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
> >> writes
> >> >ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
> >> >> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
> >> >> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Gail Klein, astrologer
> >> >> > g...@panix.com
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, you decided to take up the joint post of "controller" of
> >> alt.astrology?
> >
> >What are the perks?
>
> Unquestioning obedience from hundreds of nubile astro-chicks, the
> sunsign pendant of your choice in platinum, unlimited access to
> alt.astrology's crack legal team, and 50% of the royalty payments from
> Stapleton's Numbers.
Wait...
Is that MY half, or do we split all that 50/50?
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vq7sm$kk1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>> In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>>
>>>> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>>>
>>> all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
>>> it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
>>
>>Isn't at least the expected birth-PLACE known by now? Or are you
>>considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
>>be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
>>latitude of the Internet? :-)))
>
> :) It still requires an action, and that is carried out by a person
> at a particular geographical place.
Or the one carrying out the actions which does create it? What if
more than one person is collaborating, and if these people are at
widely separate positions on the Earth?
>>Also: the degeneration of a.a in recent years, could that in your
>>opinion have been avoided if some other birth time had been
>>selected for a.a ?
>
> I think so; alt.tarot is an example of a newsgroup relatively
> unplagued by the level of "noise" on alt.astrology. I should
> probably try to find their chart. :)
flames and other garbage here - after all, they're only following the
"energies" formed at the creation of a.a - right? The person to
REALLY blame for the degeneration of a.a is the one who once created
the newsgroup -- for choosing such a bad time for its creating.
Right?
--
Tony Tiger
wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <362039B4...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
>> writes
>> >Sherilyn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <362008F9...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
>> >> writes
>> >> >ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <Pine.GSU.4.03.98100...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> >> >> Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > alt.astrology.moderated will (hopefully) be coming to a server
>> >> >> > near you, very soon. Please watch here for the formal announce-
>> >> >> > ment, following its inception. It won't be a minute too soon!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gail Klein, astrologer
>> >> >> > g...@panix.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes.
>> >>
>> >> So, you decided to take up the joint post of "controller" of
>> >> alt.astrology?
>> >
>> >What are the perks?
>>
>> Unquestioning obedience from hundreds of nubile astro-chicks, the
>> sunsign pendant of your choice in platinum, unlimited access to
>> alt.astrology's crack legal team, and 50% of the royalty payments from
>> Stapleton's Numbers.
>
>Wait...
>
>
>Is that MY half, or do we split all that 50/50?
No, I think you would have to figure on percentage of the post here,
which in your case, might just be 50%:)
I think the operative word is "enforceable", are copyrights the same,
say in places like Outer Mongolia? I mean, no one actually owns the
usenet, do they?
What about the stuff that is already on ones hard-drive... Simple
question but I'm not sure if there are simple answers. Are there
anything like standards established for infractions.
I just thik that it would be fun... I mean, it's certainly not
Shakespeare, but this stuff is very funny sometimes.
Tom Kerr
SNIP!
>No, but each participant owns the exclusive rights to their output and may
>protect it as they see fit. Their "creative work" reeives copyright protection
>as soon as it is created.
Perhaps this means that Ed owns the copyright on the private emails he's been
posting ?
SNIP!
anonym™
No,*Susan* owns the copyrights to those writings.
Ed's excisions, modifications, and additions, and publishing any part of those
letters without Susan's permision are all violations of her copyright, not to
mention her privacy.
He's a real cockbite.
Hey, Tom!
Where's Bronzey?
I noticed Zodiac posting, but whew is widdo Bwonzie and his Spycey Hos?
Tom Kerr
>Tom Kerr wrote:
>>
>> In article <36216C80...@pacbell.net>, ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>> SNIP!
>>
>> >No, but each participant owns the exclusive rights to their output and may
>> >protect it as they see fit. Their "creative work" reeives copyright
> protection
>> >as soon as it is created.
>>
>> Perhaps this means that Ed owns the copyright on the private emails he's been
>> posting ?
>>
>> SNIP!
>
>No,*Susan* owns the copyrights to those writings.
>
>
Well, I was thinking more about the "creative" side of things...
>Ed's excisions, modifications, and additions, and publishing any part of those
>letters without Susan's permision are all violations of her copyright, not to
>mention her privacy.
>
So, let's take a hypothetical situation. I don't know a lot about this sort of
law which is why I'm asking.
Say someone posts what they say is an email from someone without that
someone's permission (or knowing that the original emailer would object). They
then make the whole thing up, or edit it to such an extent that it's totally
unrecognizable from the original.
Is that violating copyright?
As for violating privacy, it seems most people are of the same opinion. Ed is
lower than pond scum for doing that.
>He's a real cockbite.
>
>Hey, Tom!
>
>Where's Bronzey?
>
>I noticed Zodiac posting, but whew is widdo Bwonzie and his Spycey Hos?
Zodiac completely failed to respond to a challenge I made to him which was to
tell us what Avital would be doing on the 3rd of Oct 1998. This was after he
asked Hoovamon to describe what someone with birthdata <whatever> would be
doing on a particular day in the future.
Looks as though Br...Zodiac lived up to his repution as a troll.
It could also be because some accounts are "teetering"...
Gail Klein
>In article <6vrlgk$c...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <6vq7sm$kk1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>
>>>In article <6vq0ov$g...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>>>>
>>>> I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
>>>> all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
>>>> it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
>>>
>>>Isn't at least the expected birth-PLACE known by now? Or are you
>>>considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
>>>be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
>>>latitude of the Internet? :-)))
>>
>> :) It still requires an action, and that is carried out by a person
>> at a particular geographical place.
>
>Which person counts here? The one deciding to create the newsgroup?
>Or the one carrying out the actions which does create it? What if
>more than one person is collaborating, and if these people are at
>widely separate positions on the Earth?
The one carrying out the actions that create it. Like with a
child, the idea of the child may occur before the actual birth.
It's the birth that's the action which starts the child's life
as a separate and distinct being (actually, the first breath).
If more than one person are *able* to carry out that act of
creation simultaneously, in different places on earth, that's
an interesting question, and one I'm not presently able to
answer.
It could be that the people in each "birth place" will experience
the entity differently; respond to it differently, that it will
have a different feeling atmosphere.
>>>Also: the degeneration of a.a in recent years, could that in your
>>>opinion have been avoided if some other birth time had been
>>>selected for a.a ?
>>
>> I think so; alt.tarot is an example of a newsgroup relatively
>> unplagued by the level of "noise" on alt.astrology. I should
>> probably try to find their chart. :)
>
>OK, then there's absolutely no reason to blame all those who post
>flames and other garbage here - after all, they're only following the
>"energies" formed at the creation of a.a - right? The person to
>REALLY blame for the degeneration of a.a is the one who once created
>the newsgroup -- for choosing such a bad time for its creating.
>Right?
Not quite, because each individual is still wholly responsible
for his or her actions. The birtb chart for a group like this
doesn't "zombify" anyone. It just imparts a certain mood or
environmental quality. Each individual responds to that mood
in his or her own way, and bears full responsibility for what
s/he puts in, and takes out.
Alt.astrology was created in a very bad "mood". :) So, what I'm
trying to do, in picking a chart, is to find a good mood, which
will incorporate various things which are desirable in a dis-
cussion group. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect
chart, so even the best I can do will still have its rough spots.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
jfred
> Where's Bronzey?
I chased the little no-nads away.
--
Cahooter #14
email me at my-name-here (at) skyquest (dot) net
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Jim Rogers
> > >>...Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~~~p.com> surprised and enlightened us with...
...
> > >>>I see the indicated contradiction as important, however, and one or the
> > >>>other goals ought to be struck (exclude "testing," or include
> > >>>"skepticism"). There is only a minor difference between arguing
> > >>>"validity" and arguing "sidereal vs. tropical," and no difference at all
> > >>>between "testing" and questioning "validity" of the premise under test.
> > >>>If a.a.m becomes a mess or moderation-migraine because of the ambiguity,
> > >>>all I can do is say "I told you so."
> If you do not put "no arguments about testing or the validity of
> ASTROLOGY in general" Gail-you will forever regret it. I wrote the
> charter for metapsych correctly but no one would help me enforce
> it-which they could have.
You can't "enforce" a charter for an unmoderated group. Gail knows this
and that's why she's helping to start a moderated group -- no thanks to
you, who've opposed any such efforts ever since you started your vanity
group, "metapsych."
[snip]
> ... Thats how they should be excluded-we all
> as astrologers want to discuss ways to test astrology's validity to help
> make our case-that should be allowed. But arguments to "prove" its
> INVALIDITY MUST be excluded.
Hypocrite. You want to allow only "positive" evidence, and blind
yourself to the overwhelming "negative" evidence. The One-Eyed King of
astrology hath spoken.
Jim
anonym™
>
> In article <36219381...@pacbell.net>, ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >Tom Kerr wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <36216C80...@pacbell.net>, ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >>
> >> SNIP!
> >>
> >> >No, but each participant owns the exclusive rights to their output and may
> >> >protect it as they see fit. Their "creative work" reeives copyright
> > protection
> >> >as soon as it is created.
> >>
> >> Perhaps this means that Ed owns the copyright on the private emails he's been
> >> posting ?
> >>
> >> SNIP!
> >
> >No,*Susan* owns the copyrights to those writings.
> >
> >
>
> Well, I was thinking more about the "creative" side of things...
>
> >Ed's excisions, modifications, and additions, and publishing any part of those
> >letters without Susan's permision are all violations of her copyright, not to
> >mention her privacy.
> >
>
> So, let's take a hypothetical situation. I don't know a lot about this sort of
> law which is why I'm asking.
>
> Say someone posts what they say is an email from someone without that
> someone's permission (or knowing that the original emailer would object). They
> then make the whole thing up,
Call that Scenario #1.
> or edit it to such an extent that it's totally
> unrecognizable from the original.
And call that Scenario #2
>
> Is that violating copyright?
>
Scenario #1 is not, but it *is* forgery..
Scenario #2 is not, given the parameters you described.
But if there are enough recognizable, distinct poetions that clearly indicate
which original it was taken from, then it's copyright violation.
Scenario #2 would be forgery as well.
> As for violating privacy, it seems most people are of the same opinion. Ed is
> lower than pond scum for doing that.
There is a real healthy and fresh, good feeling in that astrologers
and skeptics alike can come together for a consensus like that.
>
> >He's a real cockbite.
> >
> >Hey, Tom!
> >
> >Where's Bronzey?
> >
> >I noticed Zodiac posting, but whew is widdo Bwonzie and his Spycey Hos?
>
> Zodiac completely failed to respond to a challenge I made to him which was to
> tell us what Avital would be doing on the 3rd of Oct 1998. This was after he
> asked Hoovamon to describe what someone with birthdata <whatever> would be
> doing on a particular day in the future.
>
> Looks as though Br...Zodiac lived up to his repution as a troll.
>
> It could also be because some accounts are "teetering"...
Or have fallen off the wall, and all the King's horses, and all the King's men...
Pissed on him.
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vs2a4$750$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>In article <6vrlgk$c...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In <6vq7sm$kk1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>>
>>>>Isn't at least the expected birth-PLACE known by now? Or are you
>>>>considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
>>>>be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
>>>>latitude of the Internet? :-)))
>>>
>>> :) It still requires an action, and that is carried out by a person
>>> at a particular geographical place.
>>
>>Which person counts here? The one deciding to create the newsgroup?
>>Or the one carrying out the actions which does create it? What if
>>more than one person is collaborating, and if these people are at
>>widely separate positions on the Earth?
>
> The one carrying out the actions that create it. Like with a
> child, the idea of the child may occur before the actual birth.
> It's the birth that's the action which starts the child's life
> as a separate and distinct being (actually, the first breath).
> If more than one person are *able* to carry out that act of
> creation simultaneously, in different places on earth, that's
> an interesting question, and one I'm not presently able to
> answer.
Maybe more than one server needs to be configured, for instance,
and each server is handled by separate persons?
>>> I think so; alt.tarot is an example of a newsgroup relatively
>>> unplagued by the level of "noise" on alt.astrology. I should
>>> probably try to find their chart. :)
>>
>>OK, then there's absolutely no reason to blame all those who post
>>flames and other garbage here - after all, they're only following the
>>"energies" formed at the creation of a.a - right? The person to
>>REALLY blame for the degeneration of a.a is the one who once created
>>the newsgroup -- for choosing such a bad time for its creating.
>>Right?
>
> Not quite, because each individual is still wholly responsible
> doesn't "zombify" anyone. It just imparts a certain mood or
> environmental quality. Each individual responds to that mood
> in his or her own way, and bears full responsibility for what
> s/he puts in, and takes out.
responsobility for the response?
> Alt.astrology was created in a very bad "mood". :)
> So, what I'm trying to do, in picking a chart, is to find a good
> mood, which will incorporate various things which are desirable
> perfect chart, so even the best I can do will still have its rough spots.
practical things), how will you convince them to do it at precisely
the right time?
--
Pamela Gross
> Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect
>chart, so even the best I can do will still have its rough spots.
Especially right now :)
Pam
--
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
It's October! LUPUS AWARNESS MONTH !!! Are you aware?
(if not try http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/lupuslinks.html)
Bob Officer
>In <6vq7sm$kk1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>In article <6vq0ov$g...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In <6vor0b$ki9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ann_sh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>>
>>>> May I ask the expected "birthdate," time and place?
>>>
>>> I'm still reviewing charts, Ann. After the group is created (if
>>> all goes well), the chart data, along with an explanation of why
>>> it was picked, will probably be available on the web archive.
>>
>>Isn't at least the expected birth-PLACE known by now? Or are you
>>considering several options there as well? BTW that newsgroup is to
>>be born on the Internet, right? Now, what's the exact longitude and
>>latitude of the Internet? :-)))
>
>:) It still requires an action, and that is carried out by a person
>at a particular geographical place.
really more than one place...
it has to be newgrouped.. and then each news admin has to accept it.
I suggest you use the time the newgroup directory is made on the HD of
the provider you are going to use to moderate from. and find the
actualy location of the machine. Some companies use different machine
in different locations. my ISP's pop3 mailer is located 150 miles
from their "office".
Bob Officer
Skepticult® # 105-757897-285
High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
Tyler of the Grand Order of the 'Evil' ILK
Trainer of "Overseers" in alt.paranormal
Official Cohooter (TM) #23
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission
in or on any other media than USENET groups is prohibited.
All claims for copyright according to the BERN Agreement
are held by the writers.
Gail Klein
>On 12 Oct 1998 11:24:15 -0400, g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) wrote:
>> Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect
>>chart, so even the best I can do will still have its rough spots.
>Especially right now :)
At any time, Pam. There's simply no such thing as a chart without
problems. That's the nature of earthly life. :)
Gail
>Pam
>--
>Pamela Gross
>be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
>Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
>It's October! LUPUS AWARNESS MONTH !!! Are you aware?
>(if not try http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/lupuslinks.html)
Gail Klein
>Several people may carry out different parts of creating the newsgroup.
>Maybe more than one server needs to be configured, for instance,
>and each server is handled by separate persons?
I don't know, Paul. But that is not what I'm planning.
>> Not quite, because each individual is still wholly responsible
>> for his or her actions. The birth chart for a group like this
>> doesn't "zombify" anyone. It just imparts a certain mood or
>> environmental quality. Each individual responds to that mood
>> in his or her own way, and bears full responsibility for what
>> s/he puts in, and takes out.
>
>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>responsobility for the response?
Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>> Alt.astrology was created in a very bad "mood". :)
>
>Did you check its natal chart?
Yes.
>Those who help you set up the newsgroup (i.e. those who do the
>practical things), how will you convince them to do it at precisely
>the right time?
By agreement, of course. A UNIX script, mailed to me, verifies the
timing that I choose.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
EH Wollmann
SNIP!
GET OUT YOU ARE OFF TOPIC. What astrology would you like to discuss you
abuser?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
Paul Schlyter
> There's simply no such thing as a chart without problems.
> That's the nature of earthly life. :)
Suppose you were given the liberty to construct such a chart:
you were allowed to position the planets anywhere you'd like,
you could choose any birth place on Earth, i.e. more or less
put the houses anywhere you'd like, etc. Are you really sure
that, in spite of this, it would be absolutely impossible
to get a chart without problems?
--
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>Several people may carry out different parts of creating the newsgroup.
>>Maybe more than one server needs to be configured, for instance,
>>and each server is handled by separate persons?
>
> I don't know, Paul. But that is not what I'm planning.
practical matters in creating this newsgroup.
>>> Not quite, because each individual is still wholly responsible
>>> for his or her actions. The birth chart for a group like this
>>> doesn't "zombify" anyone. It just imparts a certain mood or
>>> environmental quality. Each individual responds to that mood
>>> in his or her own way, and bears full responsibility for what
>>> s/he puts in, and takes out.
>>
>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>responsobility for the response?
>
> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
But....
>>> Alt.astrology was created in a very bad "mood". :)
>>
>>Did you check its natal chart?
>
> Yes.
responsibility? You can't blame the behaviour of many people on a.a
on this chart, since they're responsible for their own behaviour,
right?
I think you must make up your mind here: Are we responsible for our
own actions? Or are we helpless victims of the "mood" of some natal
chart? You can't have it both ways.
>>Those who help you set up the newsgroup (i.e. those who do the
>>practical things), how will you convince them to do it at precisely
>>the right time?
>
> By agreement, of course. A UNIX script, mailed to me, verifies the
> timing that I choose.
by several minutes or even more.
And what if something unexpected happens? Suppose a critical server
breaks down and needs servicing at the very time you've chosen, so
that the noewsgroup gets created a few hours late. What would you do
in such a case? Require that the newsgroup gets uncreated, and then
recreated at a later, more favourable, moment?
Gail Klein
>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>
>>>Several people may carry out different parts of creating the newsgroup.
>>>Maybe more than one server needs to be configured, for instance,
>>>and each server is handled by separate persons?
>>
>> I don't know, Paul. But that is not what I'm planning.
>
>I know *you* are not planning this -- but you're not dealing with the
>practical matters in creating this newsgroup.
The actions which begin the entity will be carried out at one
specific place at one specific time.
>>>> Not quite, because each individual is still wholly responsible
>>>> for his or her actions. The birth chart for a group like this
>>>> doesn't "zombify" anyone. It just imparts a certain mood or
>>>> environmental quality. Each individual responds to that mood
>>>> in his or her own way, and bears full responsibility for what
>>>> s/he puts in, and takes out.
>>>
>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>responsobility for the response?
>>
>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>
>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>
>But....
>
>>>> Alt.astrology was created in a very bad "mood". :)
>>>
>>>Did you check its natal chart?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>...wouldn't likewise the bad chart of a.a also be free of all
>responsibility? You can't blame the behaviour of many people on a.a
>on this chart, since they're responsible for their own behaviour,
>right?
Yes. A chart has no responsibility, Paul, in and of itself. It's
the person or thing it reflects who/which has the responsibility.
For instance, let's say that a major corporation has a Mercury
Neptune square from the first to the 10th. What would you say
that the responsibility was for that corporation with that aspect
in its radical chart?
>I think you must make up your mind here: Are we responsible for our
>own actions? Or are we helpless victims of the "mood" of some natal
>chart? You can't have it both ways.
Yes, outer conditions will affect our inner moods (unless we're
very adept at emotional detachment and/or oblivious to them),
and yes, we are responsible for our actions in response to that mood.
Here's another example: you meet someone you do not like. This
individual "causes" you to feel uncomfortable on some level, for
no outward reason (iow, s/he's done nothing bad to you).
If you avoid this person, is that his/her fault? Or is it your
own choice?
>>>Those who help you set up the newsgroup (i.e. those who do the
>>>practical things), how will you convince them to do it at precisely
>>>the right time?
>>
>> By agreement, of course. A UNIX script, mailed to me, verifies the
>> timing that I choose.
>
>How do you know the times are correct? Many system clocks are off
>by several minutes or even more.
>
>And what if something unexpected happens? Suppose a critical server
>breaks down and needs servicing at the very time you've chosen, so
>that the noewsgroup gets created a few hours late. What would you do
>in such a case? Require that the newsgroup gets uncreated, and then
>recreated at a later, more favourable, moment?
I think you worry too much...
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
>WWW: New URL at http://193.12.249.96/pausch -- updated daily!
Gail Klein
>In article <6vuabt$2...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> There's simply no such thing as a chart without problems.
>> That's the nature of earthly life. :)
>
>Are you really sure about that?
>
>Suppose you were given the liberty to construct such a chart:
>you were allowed to position the planets anywhere you'd like,
>you could choose any birth place on Earth, i.e. more or less
>put the houses anywhere you'd like, etc. Are you really sure
>that, in spite of this, it would be absolutely impossible
>to get a chart without problems?
Yes, I'm afraid so.
Gail Klein
>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>
>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>responsobility for the response?
>>
>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>
>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>
>But....
But -- you've missed my point. It *is* the host's responsibility
for setting the mood of the party, but then it becomes the responsi-
bility of each guest to choose in what way to respond (or not respond)
to it, if the mood set by the host is unfavorable.
>--
Gail Klein
>In <6vv9ib$1cp$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>In article <6vuabt$2...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's simply no such thing as a chart without problems.
>>> That's the nature of earthly life. :)
>>
>>Are you really sure about that?
>>
>>Suppose you were given the liberty to construct such a chart:
>>you were allowed to position the planets anywhere you'd like,
>>you could choose any birth place on Earth, i.e. more or less
>>put the houses anywhere you'd like, etc. Are you really sure
>>that, in spite of this, it would be absolutely impossible
>>to get a chart without problems?
>Yes, I'm afraid so.
To clarify, I should say that the problems are not within the
chart itself, but are the result of the imperfection of the
human being, and of human affairs. Since people are not perfect,
we can't express any chart in a problem-free way.
Gail Klein
>In <6vv9k1$1e1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>>
>>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>>responsobility for the response?
>>>
>>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>>
>>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>>
>>But....
>But -- you've missed my point.
Sorry, maybe you didn't. In my example I gave the host a choice of
2 different moods to set, which is a loose analogy for picking a
mood via the choice of an electional chart -- very widely divided
into 2 categories, calming, and uncalming.
If the host had no apparent choice, as is the case with natural
births of all kinds (I won't get metaphysical here :), you're
absolutely right, it's no longer the responsibility of the host,
but purely the responsibility of the guests to choose their response
to the mood, just as in all situations everywhere we choose our
response to the people and conditions we encounter.
>It *is* the host's responsibility
>for setting the mood of the party, but then it becomes the responsi-
>bility of each guest to choose in what way to respond (or not respond)
>to it, if the mood set by the host is unfavorable.
>>--
Roger L Satterlee
Paul Schlyter wrote in message <6vo05f$bno$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>In article <6vnpg6$s...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Paul Schlyter wrote in message <6vn3da$g84$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>>>In article <6vlcnr$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>Roger L Satterlee <rog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You two still don't understand that you are calling and *art* a
religion
>>>> or a science...Like linear perspective in the most surreal painting,
>>>> *perspective* can be *tested* as a function of one's subjective
responses
>>>> to the *symbolized reality*, and it can be improved upon in the art of
>>>> astrology as it has been in the art of painting...I think your
>>>> perspective could use some work here guy's...:)
>>>
>>>So you claim astrology is merely an art?
>>>
>>>Fine with me -- I could even agree with you. However, if astrology
>>>is just an art, then the importance if the accuracy of natal data
>>>will vanish - why? Because claiming that natal data must be accurate
>>>is a TESTABLE claim, which immediately brings astrology outside the
>>>realm of art....
>>
>> Paul,
>> The mechanics of a natal chart are like the mechanics of photography:
>> the art of photography is dependent on the mechanics of the medium being
>> correct, but becoming an artist--experiencing the art itself--is in no
way
>> guaranteed by such objective precision alone. Your expressed desire
here,
>> figuratively speaking, to change the aperture and shutter speed settings,
so
>> as to challenge (or impede) the aspiring artist here, seems a case sour
>> grapes, I think...:) I think an astrologer's performance is usually
poor
>> even in the best conditions; like the aspiring photographer. How many
>> artistic photographs do we really achieve on a roll of film...how many of
us
>> take nothing but snapshots all our lives...but, why be one of the people
who
>> are simply content with drawing mustaches on advertising photos in the
>> subway...:)
>
>Your comparison is invalid:
>
>If you set a grossly errnoeous aperture/shutter speed combination when
>taking a photograph, you're guaranteed to get a very bad photograph,
>no matter whether you're an amateur or a pro.
>
>If you make a chart interpretation on a chart based on grossly
>erroneous natal data, your chance of getting a good reading is just
>as good as if you use correct natal data, as long as you sincerely
>believe the grossly erroneous natal data is correct and treat it as
>such. Numerous tests have shown that during double blind tests,
>chart readings based on correct natal data are indistingusihable
>from readings based on grossly erroneous natal data.
>
>Photographs which are grossly under- or overexposed are *easily*
>distinguishable from photographs which are correctly exposed.
>
My comparison (above) is poor! This is mainly due to a type mismatch
here--the complexity of astrology versus the simplicity of your
arguments...:)
I simply suggest that people are not often represented well by *any*
symbolic means, including all alphanumerical/language based desciptions.
Therefore, charts can easily be distorted by the introduction of bad data
and still might convincingly reflect some *measure* of a given individual.
This is true because both sets of data in any such comparison are badly
distorted and hopelessly vague. I say that tests of astrology have not yet
evolved...our understanding of ourselves and our knowledge of symbols
inherent to our human nature are infantile and dim. All that has been done,
experimentally, is merely the comparisons of two distorted symbolic
representations of the complex ,unfathomable, *thing* that is an average
human being. The tests you cite are but babble compared to mishmosh...:)
I'm glad that you are pleased with the results of these tests, but I think
you too easily satisfied to be an impressive thinker or convincing expert.
I do however envy and admire your apparent mastery of English as a second
language...that does impress me...:) Now if only you would apply your
communication/linguistic facility to an *astrological* expertise beyond the
physical astronomy of the art, you would be a much more interesting man,
Paul.
Rog
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vv9k1$1e1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>>
>>>>Maybe more than one server needs to be configured, for instance,
>>>>and each server is handled by separate persons?
>>>
>>> I don't know, Paul. But that is not what I'm planning.
>>
>>I know *you* are not planning this -- but you're not dealing with the
>>practical matters in creating this newsgroup.
>
> The actions which begin the entity will be carried out at one
> specific place at one specific time.
entity"? Your decision to create this newsgroup? Something else?
>>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>>responsobility for the response?
>>>
>>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>>
>>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>>
>>But....
>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you check its natal chart?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>...wouldn't likewise the bad chart of a.a also be free of all
>>responsibility? You can't blame the behaviour of many people on a.a
>>on this chart, since they're responsible for their own behaviour,
>>right?
>
> Yes. A chart has no responsibility, Paul, in and of itself. It's
> the person or thing it reflects who/which has the responsibility.
And how can a *thing* have responsibility?
> For instance, let's say that a major corporation has a Mercury
> Neptune square from the first to the 10th. What would you say
> that the responsibility was for that corporation with that aspect
> in its radical chart?
a square has no noticeable effect at all. It would be irresponsible
to change any actions just because of that.
>>I think you must make up your mind here: Are we responsible for our
>>own actions? Or are we helpless victims of the "mood" of some natal
>>chart? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Yes, outer conditions will affect our inner moods (unless we're
> very adept at emotional detachment and/or oblivious to them),
> and yes, we are responsible for our actions in response to that mood.
>
> Here's another example: you meet someone you do not like. This
> individual "causes" you to feel uncomfortable on some level, for
> no outward reason (iow, s/he's done nothing bad to you).
> If you avoid this person, is that his/her fault? Or is it your
> own choice?
to avoid that person.....
Another, more extreme, example: suppose a dangerous rapist and serial
killer resided in your neighbourhood. He had already raped, abused
and killed a dozen women, but despite a lot of attempts the police
had so far failed to catch him. You'd certainly would avoid going
out under such circumstances, right? Would that be your own choice,
or would it be the serial killer's fault? If it's your own choice,
do you consider it perfectly acceptable that a few men make many
women to scarred to get out?
>>>>Those who help you set up the newsgroup (i.e. those who do the
>>>>practical things), how will you convince them to do it at precisely
>>>>the right time?
>>>
>>> By agreement, of course. A UNIX script, mailed to me, verifies the
>>> timing that I choose.
>>
>>How do you know the times are correct? Many system clocks are off
>>by several minutes or even more.
>>
>>And what if something unexpected happens? Suppose a critical server
>>breaks down and needs servicing at the very time you've chosen, so
>>that the noewsgroup gets created a few hours late. What would you do
>>in such a case? Require that the newsgroup gets uncreated, and then
>>recreated at a later, more favourable, moment?
>
> I think you worry too much...
the "power of the stars". I'm just wondering how you'd handle such a
situation.
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vv9k1$1e1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>>
>>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>>responsobility for the response?
>>>
>>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>>
>>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>>
>>But....
>
> for setting the mood of the party, but then it becomes the responsi-
> bility of each guest to choose in what way to respond (or not respond)
If so, who will be responsible for the final outcome of the party?
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vvdlm$n...@panix2.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) writes:
>
>>In <6vv9ib$1cp$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>>In article <6vuabt$2...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's simply no such thing as a chart without problems.
>>>> That's the nature of earthly life. :)
>>>
>>>Are you really sure about that?
>>>
>>>Suppose you were given the liberty to construct such a chart:
>>>you were allowed to position the planets anywhere you'd like,
>>>you could choose any birth place on Earth, i.e. more or less
>>>put the houses anywhere you'd like, etc. Are you really sure
>>>that, in spite of this, it would be absolutely impossible
>>>to get a chart without problems?
>
>>Yes, I'm afraid so.
>
> To clarify, I should say that the problems are not within the
> chart itself, but are the result of the imperfection of the
> human being, and of human affairs.
tendency to belive astrological natal charts matter to their
everyday lives....
Paul Schlyter
> In <6vveef$n...@panix2.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Gail Klein) writes:
>
>>In <6vv9k1$1e1$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>
>>>In article <6vub3g$3...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In <6vtnpo$95$1...@merope.saaf.se> pau...@merope.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>If each such mood always triggers a response, where's the
>>>>>responsobility for the response?
>>>>
>>>> Within the individual. Here's an analogy: you go to a party, and
>>>> the host has only 2 records, Motorhead, and Vangelis. It's up to
>>>> the host which record gets played, but if you don't enjoy the mood
>>>> set by the music, that's your own subjective response. If you leave
>>>> the party, or start getting angry and shouting, that's your own
>>>> response, the host didn't *make* you do it.
>>>
>>>Point taken - the host has no responsibility for the general mood of
>>>his party -- his guests have all the responsobility for this.
>>>
>>>But....
>
>>But -- you've missed my point.
>
> 2 different moods to set, which is a loose analogy for picking a
> mood via the choice of an electional chart -- very widely divided
> into 2 categories, calming, and uncalming.
>
> If the host had no apparent choice, as is the case with natural
> births of all kinds (I won't get metaphysical here :), you're
> absolutely right, it's no longer the responsibility of the host,
> but purely the responsibility of the guests to choose their response
> to the mood, just as in all situations everywhere we choose our
> response to the people and conditions we encounter.
shoulders of the newborn child here....