I HAte The Moon!!!!!
Unknown
Why is it the dam moon causes so much Tension everytime its in my sign
or maybe in any other sign????? This powerful symbol in the sky seems
to make me feel like this too many times a year. Why????
solitaire
Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
resides...
when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
--
Rational behavior is a choice, not a predestination.
Kent Paul Dolan, news.admin.censorship, 12/26/97
Sherilyn
In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
<soli...@innocent.com> writes
>Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>resides...
>
>when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
--
Sherilyn| alt.astrology
Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Unknown
>In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
><soli...@innocent.com> writes
>>Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>>particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>>resides...
>>
>>when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>>difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>>either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>>simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>>reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
IS THIS WHY??????
>Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>Sherilyn
hm................
IS IT NOT TRUE??????
Jimmy
Sherilyn
In article <3515522a...@news.demon.co.uk>, ?@?.? writes
This is what I would like to know. If proof by assertion is your bag,
I'm afraid I'm going to let ou into a little secret: your head is a well
disguised parasitic banana. You don't believe me? Well, that just goes
to show how screwed-up that banana on top of your shoulders can get!
Denial is an ugly thing.
...or, we could discuss it, citing evidence. Your choice, bananahead.
kal...@geocities.com
In article <35137303...@news.demon.co.uk>,
(Jimmy) wrote:
>
> Why is it the dam moon causes so much Tension everytime its in my sign
> or maybe in any other sign????? This powerful symbol in the sky seems
> to make me feel like this too many times a year. Why????
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
kal...@geocities.com
Matthew Durand
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> If not perhaps you could expand your bigoted mind and learn some
> psychology, metaphoric understanding and symbology and quit blaming
> others for your deficiencies.
> This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> astrological factor combinations, and therefore reflects what we can
> examine through each horoscope is just a few of the possible varieties
> of vibrational frequencies expressed by individuals at any given time on
> planet Earth-but this number is itself irrelevent.
>
> These vibrational patterns (wave forms and electro-magnetic) can be
> similar of course, but individuality means individuality and is
> based on more than either astrological measurements or DNA alone. It is
> a conglomeration of factors all permeating one another. But these levels
> and reflected vibrations can be EXPERIENCED in an infinite array of
> ways.
> The astrological reflections simply lay out parameters of archetypes-of
> perspectives both collectively and individually. It is very hard to
> measure personal experience empirically. Astrological indicators are
> therefore reflective of a probable spectrum of experience. It requires
> interpretation as we have said, therefore it is a co-created event.
> Metaphors and psychological revelations cannot be proven empirically.
> But they are valid, reportable through experience, sometimes life
> changing and world changing, and powerful factors none-the-less.
Bud, you've done way too much acid.
Matt
Venombite2
>Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>Sherilyn
Although I'm sure this thread has been beaten to death in this newsgroup many
times before, I must insert here the idea that proof is not necessary for
belief.
Most of the population of the earth vests faith in a religious system without
any proof that God (or gods) exist. They don't need it and they won't change
their mind just because someone says there is no proof of God. Things that are
real exist regardless of human belief. Likewise, although the skeptics whose
comments are seen frequently in this group profess otherwise, they have made up
thier minds that astrology does not work and would not believe in it even if
you could prove it to them scientifically.
To demand proof that astrology works is pointless, because those who believe in
it will do so even if some dedicated skeptic (as there seem to be many of
slumming around this newsgroup these days) types page after page of
anti-astrological study results into a post. There is also very little chance
that a skeptic will believe in astrolgy despite the empirical observations of
the many believers subscribed to this newsgroup.
I'm sure my post will be attacked by the skeptics on the basis of why it is
important that we always prove things before we believe them, and how unwise it
is to trust something without proof. On a certain level they are correct. But
I think such arguements sidestep my point, and I'd like to see what the
skeptics say about that, which is: People will believe what they want to
believe, and in very few cases will attacking a belief system drive away
adherents.
"If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will
render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me."
Deuteronomy 32:41
Edmond Wollmann
Sherilyn wrote:
In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
<soli...@innocent.com> writes
> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
> >resides...
> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
If not perhaps you could expand your bigoted mind and learn some
The philosophical construct and approach in living techniques,
psychological lifestyle quality enhancements, as well as
self-empowerment understandings cannot be proven to anyone-they must
prove it to themselves. It is a co-created event, as are all others
(science is as well). We know, for example in psychology that diffusion
of responsibility and deindividuation is a "real" factor (wherein
helping each other in say a tug-of-war individuals exercise less effort
than when performing alone). But as to whether any certain individual in
any certain situation will practice it is an unknown.
The collective "event" of physicality is measurable because it is
rather like the autonomic nervous system-a continuous creation on
another level altogether so we needn't be preoccupied with it, which
frees us up for focus of our consciousness on the certain parameters of
the experience of living in this creation. It is empirically measurable
because to a great degree it has already been fixed in this agreement.
If one changes their view on life, this may or may not be measurable.
If say, we quit smoking because of a change in belief and
perspective-this may be measurable. If on the other hand we are
economically impoverished and change our perspective on whether economic
impoverishedness is good or bad or in any way means anything-but remain
in the same economic condition, we may be able to see and feel and
experience a different reality. But there may be no way to measure it
other than by self report.
By the same token astrology may allow us recognitions that change our
perspectives and hence life experiences dramatically-by qualitative not
quantitative measurements. And in that way, the statistical variable we
described, is irrelevant. It is indeed the theory that determines not
only what we will observe and whether it is qualitative or
quantitative-but how we measure it, obtain data about it, obtain results
and come to conclusions. The only way these things can be proven is with
desire, to the self, by the self with application, conviction, and
trust.
But we cannot measure or construct tests TO measure qualitative
variables that we ourselves cannot cognize accurately or empathically
with clear perspective- or understand without OTHERS self report.
--
"Not everything thats counted counts or that counts counted." Albert
Einstein
"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
"There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein
"I don't want to BE right, but to know WHETHER I am right." Albert
Einstein
"To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a
phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases
fails us". ..."Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of
exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not
because of any lack of order in nature".
Albert Einstein "Out of my Later Years" published in 1950
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
Einstein ^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/astro.htm
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> astrological factor combinations,
It is? How did you come up with this big number? Please show your
figuring.You're not just quoting Noel Tyl willy-nilly, are you?
.
TmpstQueen
In article <35137303...@news.demon.co.uk>, (Jimmy) writes:
>
>Why is it the dam moon causes so much Tension everytime its in my sign
>or maybe in any other sign????? This powerful symbol in the sky seems
>to make me feel like this too many times a year. Why????
>
>
How well do you understand your own chart? Perhaps the motion of the moon
activates some really horrendous aspect combination in your natal chart, thus
thrusting that aspect to the forefront every time it is activated? If you post
your time, date and place of birth, others could look into this and give you
some better insight. (Don't forget to give your current longitude and latitude
if different from your birth one, for relocation chart insights.)
Sherilyn
In article <199803230410...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
venom...@aol.com (Venombite2) wrote:
>
>
> >Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
> >I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
I must insert here the idea that proof is not necessary for
> belief.
Whilst this is true, statements of belief in a public forum are open
to challenge. I don't want to (and couldn't) take anyone's belief away
from them, but since this is in fact a discussion forum I do thinks it's
fair for those of us who with to _discuss_ astrology rather than just
profess various unsupported beliefs, to do so. Those who aren't
interested don't have to read the posts.
...
> Likewise, although the skeptics
> whose
> comments are seen frequently in this group profess otherwise, they
> have made up thier minds that astrology does not work and would
> not believe in it even if you could prove it to them scientifically.
I happen to disagree on this point. On the issue of the Torah codes,
for instance, although initially skeptical, I am convinced by Rips'
mathematical argument that there is something unusual about a
particular 11th century translation of the bible. I don't know _what_
Rips' results mean (and may never know) but I definitely think he's onto
something.
Likewise, with Gauquelin's Mars Effect, whilst, I'm still skeptical,
I think there may one day prove to be a significant, if small, effect,
though there is no obvious mechanism.
Then there's the so-called Face on Mars. There is the most appalling
amount of tosh talked about this figure, mainly on the basis of some
over-processed digital images. That there is something interesting
and worth looking at there, however, cannot be denied. Like Sagan,
I think it's worth exploring the possibility.
--
Sherilyn
--
Sherilyn
widdershins
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:53:31 -0800, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
>> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>> >resides...
>
>> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
>
>> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>
>If not perhaps you could expand your bigoted mind and learn some
>psychology, metaphoric understanding and symbology and quit blaming
>others for your deficiencies.
>
>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>astrological factor combinations,
You know, the last time you posted this bit of unattributed crap you were
whipped up and down the news group by folks wanting to know how the
number was derived. You finally wound up cowering in a corner and admitted
it wasn't you figure, but after, and only after you dragged the whole ng through
a colossal shit storm. If anybody is keeping the rational discussion away from
astrology, here, it's you.
PZ Myers
Again? What a moron. You have no justification for that specific number --
it is all a fabrication.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Edmond Wollmann
widdershins wrote:
SNIP!
This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
astrological factor combinations, and therefore reflects what we can
examine through each horoscope is just a few of the possible varieties
of vibrational frequencies expressed by individuals at any given time on
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add the 1 to mail the Arcturian
Steve Terrell
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
...
> This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> 5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> astrological factor combinations, and therefore reflects what we can
> examine through each horoscope is just a few of the possible varieties
> of vibrational frequencies expressed by individuals at any given time on
> planet Earth-but this number is itself irrelevent.
Frequency refers to "something" happening a "number" of times per unit
of time. Now if this value is vibrating, then the frequnecy is
changing. Now, if you can say with certainty that something is
changing, then that implies that you can measure it. How are you
measuring it, Ed? and WHAT are you measuring? Oh sure, you dropped
some science words like "electro-magnetic" and such, but you did so in
such a laughable manner...
What is it that is occuring X number of times per second?
How are you measuring the change in X?
{bunch of jibberish snipped]
Chow,
Steve
widdershins
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 23:20:20 -0600, Steve Terrell <br...@flash.net> wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
nothing of importance
>
>Frequency refers to "something" happening a "number" of times per unit
>of time. Now if this value is vibrating, then the frequnecy is
>changing. Now, if you can say with certainty that something is
>changing, then that implies that you can measure it. How are you
>measuring it, Ed? and WHAT are you measuring? Oh sure, you dropped
>some science words like "electro-magnetic" and such, but you did so in
>such a laughable manner...
>
>What is it that is occuring X number of times per second?
>How are you measuring the change in X?
>
Ed's not measuring anything. He has lifted someone else's work, whose
name I forget, and spammed it here a number of times. Last winter
his ass was kicked all over the newsgroup by folks wanting to know how
he had derived it. He hem, hawed, sputtered, back-pedalled, and generally
hid from the answer. Finally, he gave in, and admitted it wasn't his.
The first time I saw him use it was nearly two years ago (looking through
dejanews). IIRC, he attributed it then. He wont answer any questions about
the BFN because a) he doesn't know how it was derived, and b) IMO
he thinks it's funny to watch while we run him to ground on it.
So, Ed, take you BFN and stick it where the Sun doesn't shine. It will more
good there, than it will posted here.
>{bunch of jibberish snipped]
>
>Chow,
> Steve
Concerned about astrology and other fakery in the greater San Diego
area? Send you questions and concerns to:
email address for San Diego PD:pol...@sdpd.sannet.gov
Edmond Wollmann
widdershins wrote:
SNIP!
5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
This number is infinitely greater than the population
a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
number of different astrological factor-combinations!
(Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
Noel Tyl, Harvard Psychology Graduate,
"The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology"
For student, teacher, professional, page 140, Llewellyn Publications
ISBN-0-87542-812-5, First edition, 1976, Copyright by Noel Tyl.
--
"No man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's
consent. I say this is the leading principle-the sheet-anchor of
American republicanism." Abraham Lincoln 1854
"Sic semper tyrannis!" (thus always to tyrants) John Wilkes Booth
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add the 1 to mail the Arcturian
anonym
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> This number is infinitely greater than the population
> a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
Ed Wollmann's Usenet history, is still far smaller than the amount of
his past, present, and future lies, threats, bullying tactics, censoring
attempts, lost ISP accounts,and sock puppet identities.
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <3517D7...@earthlink.net>...
>widdershins wrote:
>
>SNIP!
>5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
>000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>This number is infinitely greater than the population
>a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
>Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
>number of different astrological factor-combinations!
>(Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
I question the math of anyone who claims that a BIG (yet, finite) number is
"infinitely" greater than a smaller (finite) number. Immediately her
conclusions are suspect.
Paul Rumelhart
Matthew Durand
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
> Hominem)
I'm familiar with that term and its alter, ad rem.
However, I felt that if we were to be in an actual
debate it would be my duty to point out that you were
babbling. You use many technical words, whose meaning
only applies to your subject as a metaphor, yet you
apply them as fact. Not to mention the blatent
fabrications, no doubt derived from your
"Psychotrometer" and "Quanto-disturbance analyzer".
Your theory is incoherant and invalid. Forgive me if I
decided to call it as I saw, rather than providing a
decent elaboration. I just figured you'd done acid and
knew to what symptom of it I was referring. Ah well.
Good day!
Matt
.
Edmond Wollmann
Matthew Durand wrote:
> Bud, you've done way too much acid.
> Matt
Do you have a real argument?
This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
to commit an argument against the person.
The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad
hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first
person's argument by abusing the first person.
In the circumstantial it begins the same way, but instead of heaping
verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to
discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to certain circumstances
that affect the opponent. By doing so, the respondent hopes to show that
the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should
therefore not be taken seriously.
In the tu quoque it begins the same way-except that the second arguer
attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad
faith-i.e. "how dare you argue that I should stop doing x; why, you do
or have done x yourself!" Logic, 4th Edition Hurley, University of San
Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add the 1 to mail the Arcturian
Edmond Wollmann
widdershins wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:53:31 -0800, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu> wrote:
> >In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> > <soli...@innocent.com> writes
> >> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
> >> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
> >> >resides...
> >> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
> >> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
> >> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
> >> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
> >> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
> >> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
> >> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
> >If not perhaps you could expand your bigoted mind and learn some
> >psychology, metaphoric understanding and symbology and quit blaming
> >others for your deficiencies.
> >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> >astrological factor combinations,
> You know, the last time you posted this bit of unattributed crap you were
> whipped up and down
Yawn......, last time is like this time, and will be the same all the
time. I indicated where the idea was from, indicated it was irrelevent
to qualitative discernments as anyone in counsel or art or a myriad of
other subjects on the planet understands and continue with this same
point for those with a tad more than negativity and angenda on their
minds.
What astrology would you like to discuss? Application methods? Transits?
Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
--
"What you are speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying."
Walt Whitman
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add the 1 to mail the Arcturian
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
> What astrology would you like to discuss? Application methods? Transits?
> Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
Laws.
Edmond Wollmann
http://wellnessplace.com/astro/law.htm
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add the 1 to mail the Arcturian
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> anonym™ wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > What astrology would you like to discuss? Application methods? Transits?
> > > Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
>
> > Laws.
>
> http://wellnessplace.com/astro/law.htm
That's not a discusiion, that's a URL.
Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
> Hominem)
> This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
> directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
> by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
> to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
> to commit an argument against the person.
and blah blah balanced snipped in the interests of sanity
Ed - you're still doing those first year philosophy papers are you? Keep
this up and you might yet pass one, but I'd highly recommend that you
approach the subject with at least an attempt at understanding rather
than simply memorising your texts. Next step - apply what you have
memorised - let's see you construct an argument **on any topic you want
to choose** without falling into any of the common fallacies.
Toodles
A/
Lady Nidiffer
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3519B1...@earthlink.net>...
> anonym™ wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > What astrology would you like to discuss? Application methods?
Transits?
> > > Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
>
> > Laws.
>
> http://wellnessplace.com/astro/law.htm
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Clicking on Business and Professions Code with key word
fortune telling.
"(a) Every person who by the game of "three card monte,"
so-called, or any other game, device, sleight of hand,
pretensions to fortune telling, trick, or other means whatever,
by use of cards or other implements or instruments, or while
betting on sides or hands of any play or game, fraudulently
obtains from another person money or property of any description,
shall be punished as in case of larceny of property of like value...."
--
Lady Nidiffer P.M.A.F.A.
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/pmafa.html
Toadology Publications/Consultations
http://www.bcpl.net/~wnidiffe/bamt/tfhome.html
solitaire
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
> >resides...
> >
> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
>
> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
This ain't SCI.SKEPTIC, dear, so I don't have to. I'm an
astrologer. This is an astrology newsgroup.
Get a life.
--
Rational behavior is a choice, not a predestination.
Kent Paul Dolan, news.admin.censorship, 12/26/97
solitaire
widdershins wrote:
>
> You know, the last time you posted this bit of unattributed crap you were
> number was derived. You finally wound up cowering in a corner and admitted
> it wasn't you figure, but after, and only after you dragged the whole ng through
> a colossal shit storm. If anybody is keeping the rational discussion away from
> astrology, here, it's you.
Rational and skeptical are not co-evalent terms, silly boy.
Ed is perfectly rational, as an astrologer, about tropical
astrology.
It's the skeptics who are irrational about astrology per se.
Phil Harrison
In article <351A862A...@innocent.com>, solitaire
<soli...@innocent.com> writes
>
>This ain't SCI.SKEPTIC, dear, so I don't have to. I'm an
>astrologer. This is an astrology newsgroup.
>Get a life.
Well this isn't alt.astrology dear. I'm a sceptic. This is a sceptical
newsgroup.
Check the headers next time.
--
Phil Harrison
Sherilyn
>>
>> In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
>> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
>> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>> >resides...
>> >
>> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
>>
>> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>
Actually, you are posting this in sci.skeptic.
>so I don't have to.
That's okay. Then your claim has no evidential support, no matter
where, when or how you make it.
> I'm an
>astrologer. This is an astrology newsgroup.
You make an astrological claim, we discuss it. A newsgroup for the open
discussion of astrology.
>Get a life.
Got one, thanks. Your content is an improvement on the old game of a
dozen posts containing nothing but the words "troll bait".
Congratulations.
--
Sherilyn| alt.astrology
Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Marsha
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
> In article <351A862A...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
>
>
> then later in the same post.
>
> > Get a life.
>
> Anyone find this rather ... funny?
Ummmm...Nope, but thanks for asking...
Marsha
Ann Shermann
[sci.skeptic snipped because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion
at hand]
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <351A862A...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
> >> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
> >> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
> >> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
> >> >resides...
> >> >
> >> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
> >> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
> >> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
> >> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
> >> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
> >>
> >> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
> >> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
Try some "observation" *after* you learned the principles. Start off
slow since you are a novice, Tony/Sherilyn. Just a couple of cases on
point which have some very interesting triggering transits.
Case One: William Jefferson Clinton -- Moon posited in the 8th, squared
by the Sun in the 11th and Pluto in the 11.
Case Two: Kenneth Winston Starr -- Moon, singleton in the 3rd conjunct
the Nadir, squaring the Sun/Saturn cazimi in the 7th.
Just in the case of Mr. Starr alone you will note the following:
1) Saturn squaring the Sun/Saturn cazimi (5/20+)
2) Saturn conjunct the Moon (6/20+)
3) Saturn conjunct the I.C. (7/30); turning retro 8/16 for the 2nd
series of passes
4) Saturn conjunct the I.C. (9/1);
5) Saturn conjunct the Moon (10/16+);
6) Saturn square Sun/Saturn cazimi (11/14+); turning direct 12/31 for
the 3rd and final series of passes
7) Saturn square Sun/Saturn cazimi (2/12/99);
8) Saturn conjunct Moon (3/16+); and the final release
9) Saturn conjunct the I.C. (4/1/98).
So why don't you just follow the old rule of the student and watch the
phenomenon as it happens?
P.S. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial had you actually learned the
symbolism so that you could *actually* observe it in action rather than
wasting all these months in ego-flexing? (quite rhethorical and
cross-posting your response to your little "kooks" groups will just
demonstrate further a lack of intellectual integrity so do please
forebear)
Ann Shermann
Of course, it goes without saying, obey the old rule of the student,
i.e., 1) HUSH, 2) OBSERVE, 3) LEARN and of course, walk with INTEGRITY
in your observations.
Paul Schlyter
In article <351A862A...@innocent.com>,
solitaire <solit...@juno.com> wrote:
> Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
>> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
>>>Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>>>particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>>>resides...
>>>
>>>when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>>>difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>>>either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>>>simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>>>reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
>>
>> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>
REALLY? The Newsgroups: line of this message does in fact read:
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.skeptic
thus you DID post to sci.skeptic even if you were unaware if it.
> dear, so I don't have to. I'm an astrologer. This is an astrology newsgroup.
I see -- thus you readily admit that astrologers feel no need to verify
their claims, i.e. that it's all just a big mythology with no basis in
reality -- right?
> Get a life.
Learn to read!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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!
drturi
If you are interested in knowing more about the moon and her subtle
impact in our psyche ask all your questions in my group
alt.prophecies.drturi- This material is copyrighted ask Dr. turi or his
publishers permission to re-print this material.
The Universal Law
There is a tide in the affairs of man, when taken at its crest, leads on
to fortune.
— Shakespeare
Every day that God has created sees the procession of stars across the
vault of the sky; they have followed the same path through the heavens,
tracing the immutability of the cosmos and its constellations, which
have spoken to the wise since the beginning of time. This work will
explain in detail the subtle energy produced by the Moon's passage
through the twelve houses and signs of the Zodiac. These houses govern
the twelve facets of our life, and the rhythms of our cycles, our
emotions, finances, consciousness, home, children, career, friends,
wishes, fears, love, personality and all that goes to make up our
sorrows and joys. Depending on the mystical rhythm of the Moon and her
relationship — harmonious or discordant — to the constellations and
houses of the sky over which they rule, she will govern our human
activity and give birth to our vices and virtues. The infinite and
concealed dance of the Moon through the Zodiac is far from affecting
only you, but all of us. You are a "microcosm" or a child of the
Universe and there is reason for you to be. You are a part of this
incredible physical and spiritual structure called a "macrocosm."
Sir Isaac Newton wrote "for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction." We are what we think, having become what we thought. This
statement emphasizes that for every thought or action there will be an
effect. This is what I call the "Universal Law," the causes and effects
of the yin and yang recognized as the law of KARMA. The Moon is, by
herself quite responsible for much of our and the world's fate. By the
tracking of the Universal Law and using Starguide, you will be allowed
to see this lunar impact and reaction every day of your life. Obviously,
the waxing and waning periods of our closest satellite will produce the
daily process of tides. Thusly, women will have a spiritual and physical
manifestation (menstruation), and all of us will be responding
subconsciously to the words "lunatic/moody." Without opposite forces at
work there would be no reaction thus no life possible on both the
spiritual and physical plane.
*******
Our so-called "dead" satellite is very much alive, and much more than a
rock hanging above our heads. She is a vital part of a Divine celestial
design, she is the beating heart of the earth. Vigilantly observing her
whereabouts will aid understanding the real psychology of man.
— Dr. Louis Turi
*******
Scientific New Development on the Moon: U.S. space probe moving into
lunar orbit.
I always said that "The Moon is a little more than a dead rock hanging
above our head just for the sake of beauty. I just hope that, in the
future, the psychology field would also invest a little more and do some
research on the subtle forces generated by the moon and how , her
passage through the Zodiac really affects the human psyche. More than
ever, NASA seems to be interested about our close satellite and might
have missed something in 1972. On January 18th, 1998, The space probe
Lunar Prospector successfully executed the first of three engine bursts
designed to swing it gently into orbit. The small, unmanned orbiter,
NASA's first return to the moon since the Apollo 17 astronauts walked on
the lunar surface in 1972, completed its "orbital insertion" burn by
4:15 a.m. (7:15 a.m. EST), said Betsy Carter, a spokeswoman for mission
control at NASA's Ames Research Center. "We're very excited. Our
spacecraft knows how to fly," said mission manager Scott Hubbard. "The
scientific staff is ecstatic. Everything about this mission is looking
very, very clean." Lunar Prospector was launched Tuesday on a one-year
mission to scan the moon for minerals and possible water ice, which
could one day be used by human settlers. After two more engine burns,
the 4-foot, 650-pound spacecraft was expected to ease into its final
orbit on Tuesday, some 60 miles above the moon's surface. Lunar
Prospector does not carry a camera, but is equipped with five
instruments designed to map the composition of the entire lunar surface.
Researchers say the shadowy geographical poles themselves could yield
some of the mission's most exciting results. Using its neutron
spectrometer, Lunar Prospector will be checking for excess hydrogen, an
indication of water.
Scientists have speculated that frozen water from icy comets may have
accumulated within polar craters on the moon that are permanently shaded
from the sun, and radar readings sent back by the U.S. military's
Clementine probe in 1994 appeared to confirm that. The existence of
water ice on the moon could prove immensely useful for future human
colonies; for example, its components could be separated for use as
rocket fuel. With a price tag of $63 million, the Lunar Prospector is a
modest successor to the multibillion-dollar Apollo project, which put 12
men on the surface of the moon from 1969 to 1972. Budget cuts in the
early 1970s forced NASA to abandon lunar exploration and the U.S. space
agency has concentrated on building the space shuttle and sending
unmanned probes to Mars and the outer planets. With its 240,000-mile, 4
1/2-day journey from Earth behind it, Lunar Prospector will begin to
circle the moon, scanning its surface composition, detecting magnetic
fields and mapping gravitational anomalies on its outer crust.
In article <6feunn$g...@electra.saaf.se>, pau...@electra.saaf.se says...
Dr. John
solitaire <soli...@innocent.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <35135BE5...@innocent.com>, solitaire
>> <soli...@innocent.com> writes
>> >Because the moon reflects the emotion invested in a
>> >particular situation, governed by the sign/house in which it
>> >resides...
>> >
>> >when it is conjunct your sun, and if your sun is in a
>> >difficult, tension-producing aspects with another planet,
>> >either natally, by progression, or transit, the moon will
>> >simply increase the emotion around the entire issue
>> >reflected in the sun/planet aspect.
>>
>> Do you have any experimental data to back up this amazing claim? If so,
>> I'd love to review it. If not.... ;)
>
>This ain't SCI.SKEPTIC, dear, so I don't have to. I'm an
>astrologer. This is an astrology newsgroup.
>Get a life.
>--
That's right baby! You're an astrologer, you don't need no steenkin'
proof. You just gotta BELIEVE!!
Paul Schlyter
In article <351B44...@mexia.com>, Ann Shermann <a...@mexia.com> wrote:
> [sci.skeptic snipped because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion
> at hand]
verify your claims....
[sci.skeptic added back in]
> Try some "observation"
Why not try some real observations, instead of merely "observation", Ann?
> *after* you learned the principles. Start off slow since you are a
> novice, Tony/Sherilyn. Just a couple of cases on point which have
> some very interesting triggering transits.
[ a few selected cases omitted ]
Ann, by carefully selecting a few cases, one can "prove" almost
ANYTHING. One example:
Claim: During full moon, people are ALWAYS depressed
Proof: 2-3 people who once were depressed during a full moon
> So why don't you just follow the old rule of the student and watch the
> phenomenon as it happens?
In this case the "teacher" is seriously flawed, and there are very
good reasons to not follow her.
> P.S. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial had you actually learned the
> symbolism
Ann, we're not interested in merely symbolism, but in the REALITY
behind your and other astrologers' claims. If you're after the
reality, you cannot merely pick a few cases which agrees with
your prejudices, and then consider those "proof".
anonym™
Marsha wrote:
> >
> > > I'm an astrologer.
> >
> > then later in the same post.
> >
> > > Get a life.
> >
> > Anyone find this rather ... funny?
>
> Ummmm...Nope, but thanks for asking...
>
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> widdershins wrote:
> > ..., Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu> wrote:
...
> > >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> > >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> > >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> > >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> > >astrological factor combinations,
> > whipped up and down
> time. I indicated where the idea was from, indicated it was irrelevent
> to qualitative discernments as anyone in counsel or art or a myriad of
> other subjects on the planet understands and continue with this same
> point for those with a tad more than negativity and angenda on their
> minds.
>
> Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
number.
Jim
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
...
> 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> This number is infinitely greater than the population
> a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
> Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
> number of different astrological factor-combinations!
> (Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
>
> "The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology"
> For student, teacher, professional, page 140, Llewellyn Publications
> ISBN-0-87542-812-5, First edition, 1976, Copyright by Noel Tyl.
So how did Doris Chase Doane arrive at this huge number? Can you show
the expansion, where all the astrological factors work into it? If Noel
Tyl didn't show the expansion, what makes you think you can trust it
implicitly, cited from a secondary source without explanation?
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
Study and learn astrology then, this would be a good place to do so.
Find some books, including the ones suggested and that will be a good
start for you. You can't go through life expecting everyone else to do
your work for you.
Astrology
Beginners:
The Book of World Horoscopes - Nicholas Campion
The Rulership Book - Bills
Interpret Your Chart - Ludlam
Astrological Insights into Personality - Lunsted
The Only Way to Learn Astrology (3 Vols) - March & McEvers
Basic Astrology: A Guide - Negus
Basic Astrology: A Workbook - Negus
Cosmic Combinations - Negus
Astrodeck (a unique way to learn keywords) - ACS
Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer - Meyer
Alan Oken's Complete Astrology - Oken
Astrology: The Divine Science - Moore & Douglas
A Spiritual Approach to Astrology - Lofthus
Spiritual Astrology- Jan Spiller
Psychology, Astrology and the Four Elements - Arroyo
Horoscope Symbols - Hand
Astrological Keywords - Hall
Useful Outline of Signs of the Zodiac - King
Child Signs - Gloria Starr
Guide to Horoscope Interpretation - Jones
How to Learn Astrology - Jones
Astrology, How and Why it Works - Jones
New Mansions for New Men - Rudhyar
The Astrology of Personality - Rudhyar
The Practice of Astrology- a technique in understanding - Rudhyar
The Astrological Houses -Rudhyar
Transit of Saturn - Robertson
Sex, Mind, Habit, and Other Relationships - Robertson
Cosmopsychology - Robertson
The Theory of Celestial Influence - Collins
Astrologer's Handbook - Sakoian & Acker
The Inconjunct-Quincunx - Sakoian & Acker
Astrology 1-2-3 - Tyl
Pluto - Marks
Neptune - Marks
Cardinal Squares - Marks
Squares - Marks
Transits: the times of your life - Marks
The Twelfth House - Marks
Turning Oppositions into Conjunctions - Marks
Chart Synthesis - Marks
Astrology: a New Age guide - Perrone
The Inner Sky - Forrest
Astrology - Davison
A Time for Astrology - Stearn
Twelve Doors to the Soul - Evans
Principles of Astrology - Carter
Heaven Knows What- Grant Lewi
Astrology For The Millions- Grant Lewi
Intermediate and Expert:
An Astrological Mandala - Rudhyar
Person-Centered Astrology - Rudhyar
Planets in Transit - Hand
Planets in Youth - Hand
Essays in Astrology - Hand
Relationships - Guttman
AstroDice (Astrology's parallel to the I-Ching) - ACS
Psychology of the Planets - Gauquelin
The Cosmic Clocks - Gauquelin
Healing with the Horoscope - Pottenger
The American Book of Nutrition and Medical Astrology - Nauman
Interpreting the Eclipses - Jansky
The Fortunes of Astrology - Granite
Winning! Zodiacal Timing - Wehrman
Planetary Planting - Riotte
The Lively Circle - Koval
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology - Dean
The Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology
Combinations of Stellar Influences - Ebertin
Directions - Ebertin
Cosmic Marriage - Ebertin
Profiles of Women - Rodden
Relating - Greene
Saturn: a new look at an old devil - Greene
Jupiter/Saturn Conference Lectures - Greene & Arroyo
The Cycles of the Outer Planets - Greene
Expanding Astrology's Universe - Dobyns
Transpluto or Should We Call Him Bacchus - Hawkins
Career Astrology - Puotinen
Phases of the Moon - Busteen, et al.
Taking the Kid Gloves Off Astrology - Alan
Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior - Gauquelin
Vocational Guidance by Astrology - Luntz
Solar and Lunar Returns - Bradley
Solar Return Book of Prediction-Merriman
Holistic Astrology - Tyl
The Principles and Practice of Astrology- 12 volumes- Tyl
Esoteric Astrology - Bailey
Astrology, Karma, and Transformation - Arroyo
Relationships - Arroyo
Cycles of Becoming-Ruperti
Toward a New Astrology-Ry Redd
Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer- Michael R. Meyer
The Astrology of Human Relationships- Sakoian and Acker
Reference books for all astrologers:
The American Ephemeris - ACS
The Astroid Ephemeris - ACS
The American Sidereal Ephemeris - ACS
The American Book of Tables - ACS
The American Atlas (best on the market, and the most accurate)- ACS
The International Atlas - ACS
The American Book of Charts - Rodden
The Gauquelin Book of American Charts - Gauquelin
The Koch Table of Houses - AFA
The Placidus Table of Houses - AFA
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Paul Schlyter
In article <6fgknj$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
>>>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>>>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>>>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>>>>astrological factor combinations,
> number.
I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
always been the same: silence....
My guess is that he just made it up from nothing. Thus there is no
derivation of any kind behind it -- it's just Ed-babble, as usual.
Paul Schlyter
In article <351BD7...@earthlink.net>,
OK, Mr Wise Guy, please point out which one of all the books you listed
that contains a derivation of yuour number above -- if you can! <evil grin>
Edmond Wollmann
Matthew Durand wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
> > Hominem)
> However, I felt that if we were to be in an actual
> debate it would be my duty to point out that you were
> babbling. You use many technical words, whose meaning
> only applies to your subject as a metaphor, yet you
> apply them as fact. Not to mention the blatent
> fabrications, no doubt derived from your
> "Psychotrometer" and "Quanto-disturbance analyzer".
> Your theory is incoherant and invalid. Forgive me if I
> decided to call it as I saw, rather than providing a
> decent elaboration. I just figured you'd done acid and
> knew to what symptom of it I was referring. Ah well.
> Good day!
> Matt
"Forgive me my nonsense as I also forgive the nonsense of those who
think they talk sense." Robert Frost
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article <6fgknj$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.~Remove~hp.com> wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
...
> >> 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> >> This number is infinitely greater than the population
> >> a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
> >> Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
> >> number of different astrological factor-combinations!
> >> (Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
> >> Noel Tyl, Harvard Psychology Graduate,
> >> "The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology"
> >> For student, teacher, professional, page 140, Llewellyn Publications
> >> ISBN-0-87542-812-5, First edition, 1976, Copyright by Noel Tyl.
> > So how did Doris Chase Doane arrive at this huge number? Can you show
> > the expansion, where all the astrological factors work into it? If Noel
> > Tyl didn't show the expansion, what makes you think you can trust it
> > implicitly, cited from a secondary source without explanation?
................
> >>>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> >>>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> >>>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> >>>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> >>>>astrological factor combinations,
............
> > Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
> > number.
> You won't see it.
> I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
> always been the same: silence....
If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
--
" If you can't find the truth where you are where else do you think you
will find it?" Buddha
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > What astrology would you like to discuss? Application methods? Transits?
> > > Psychological meanings? Counseling techniques? What?
>
> > Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
> > number.
>
> > Jim
>
> Study and learn astrology then, this would be a good place to do so.
> Find some books, including the ones suggested and that will be a good
> start for you. You can't go through life expecting everyone else to do
> your work for you.
>
So true. And you CERTAINLY can't go though life expecting astrologers to
provide evidence to support their ridiculous and false claims.
.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > >>>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
> > >>>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
> > >>>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
> > >>>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
> > >>>>astrological factor combinations,
> ............
> > > Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
> > > number.
>
> > You won't see it.
>
> > I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
> > always been the same: silence....
>
> If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
Then Eddie doesn't know astrology because he doesn't know how it can be
derived.
Ann Shermann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <351B44...@mexia.com>, Ann Shermann <a...@mexia.com> wrote:
>
> > [sci.skeptic snipped because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion
> > at hand]
>
> Again very revealing, Ann: you find no reason whatsoever to try to
> verify your claims....
What claims, Paul? I have already accepted "The Challenge" and those
that propounded them resigned from the field. I snip "skeptic" because
Tony/Sherilyn always cross-posts apparently in hopes of garnering
support for his weak arguments, much like he cross-posts to "kooks" when
things are going badly for him.
> > Try some "observation"
>
> Why not try some real observations, instead of merely "observation", Ann?
Wow, oh, wow -- care to explain the difference between "observation" and
"real observation"?
>
> > *after* you learned the principles. Start off slow since you are a
> > novice, Tony/Sherilyn. Just a couple of cases on point which have
> > some very interesting triggering transits.
>
> [ a few selected cases omitted ]
Now isn't this interesting? The poster wanted to know about Sun square
the Moon. I posted two very well known individuals with this
configuration (Clinton and Starr) along with a detailed list of UPCOMING
transits so that the poster could observe and learn and you snipped
that. Why? Are you now four-square against observation as a method of
learning?
>
> Ann, by carefully selecting a few cases, one can "prove" almost
> ANYTHING. One example:
>
> Claim: During full moon, people are ALWAYS depressed
> Proof: 2-3 people who once were depressed during a full moon
Back to basics, Paul. Learning to walk begins with taking one step,
then two, then three, and many more will follow. Suggesting a greenhorn
who knows nothing about astrology start learning by observing 50 cases
or 500 cases is pretty idiotic. So the greenhorn should begin to
carefully observe with a couple of very high profile cases, and after
learning some basics, expand. Of course, that just makes too darn much
sense for you.
>
>
> > So why don't you just follow the old rule of the student and watch the
> > phenomenon as it happens?
>
> In this case the "teacher" is seriously flawed, and there are very
> good reasons to not follow her.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
> > P.S. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial had you actually learned the
> > symbolism
>
> Ann, we're not interested in merely symbolism, but in the REALITY
> behind your and other astrologers' claims.
Obviously not since none of "the boys" could muster 60 hours of
community service as their portion of "the challenge." After four or
five years on this newsgroup, the one thing that is abundantly clear,
Paul, is that you are not interested in doing anything but argue.
If you're after the
> reality, you cannot merely pick a few cases which agrees with
> your prejudices, and then consider those "proof".
And how, pray tell, do you conclude that I have picked cases as proof of
my prejudices when what I did was give a detailed list of UPCOMING
transits, beginning in May 98 and running well into 1999, to these two
men's charts for OBSERVATION BY ANYONE who cares to watch the drama
unfold in astrological terms?
Your objection to and snipping of my listing of those UPCOMING transits
puts the lie to the assertion that you are interested in ascertaining
the basis of astrological thought, work, and reality. If you actually
wanted to learn about that reality, you would observe the transit list
and the events closely. But then we all know that is NOT why you are
here.
Ann Shermann
widdershins
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:44:04 -0800, Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > widdershins wrote:
>> > > ..., Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu> wrote:
> ...
>> > > >This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>> > > >5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>> > > >00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>> > > >million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>> > > >astrological factor combinations,
>
>> > > You know, the last time you posted this bit of unattributed crap you were
>> > > whipped up and down
>
>> > Yawn......, last time is like this time, and will be the same all the
>> > time. I indicated where the idea was from, indicated it was irrelevent
>> > to qualitative discernments as anyone in counsel or art or a myriad of
>> > other subjects on the planet understands and continue with this same
>> > point for those with a tad more than negativity and angenda on their
>> > minds.
snip
>> Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
>> number.
>
>> Jim
>
>Study and learn astrology then, this would be a good place to do so.
>Find some books, including the ones suggested and that will be a good
>start for you. You can't go through life expecting everyone else to do
>your work for you.
Well, Jim, the pattern repeats. Ed just wont give you the answer, because
he doesn't know what it is. He got it out of someone else's book, and
trots it out whenever he is bored. For Ed, it's like poking a stick into an ant
hill, and watching the results. Oh, he'll evade, and tantalize with the
erroneous perception that he just might know how it's done, but he'll never
put up the answer, because he can't.
Hounding him will be a waste of time and bandwidth, and the result will be the
same. I found an earlier post in dejanews where he actually attributes the
BFN, but he's quoting, and not questioning or demonstrating how it may be
derived. I'm not at all sure if the person from whose book Ed purloined the
quotation, ever got around to explaining the BFN's derivation, either. I feel
confident if had been in there, and Ed still had access to it, when he got
challenged, he'd wheel it out with trumpets blaring, and banners flying.
So, the BFN stands as it is: a wild ass assertion, and no amount of yelling
at Ed is going to produce its derivation. Just look for it to resurface from time
to time, and yawn and say, "oh, well. It's just Ed trying to impress newbies
and dupes with a number having a long string of zeros (which just about
describes Ed's credibility, doncha think? "A long string of zeros?").
Snake oil reading list snipped.
>
Paul Schlyter
In article <351C7C...@earthlink.net>,
> ...
>>>>>>This number 5.3937075 x 10^58 or
>>>>>>5,393,707,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
>>>>>>00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- is greater than the population of a
>>>>>>million Earths, but the SMALLEST possible number of different
>>>>>>astrological factor combinations,
>>> Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
>>> number.
>
>
>> I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
>> always been the same: silence....
>
> If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
I predict that neither Eddie nor any other astrologer will show a
sensible derivation of this number, based on sound logic.
widdershins
On 28 Mar 1998 16:52:44 +0100, pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <351C7C...@earthlink.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <arct...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <6fgknj$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
>> Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.~Remove~hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
snip of BFN
>> ............
>>>> Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
>>>> number.
>>
>>> You won't see it.
>>
>>> I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
>>> always been the same: silence....
>>
>> If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
>
>Prove that, by showing how it's derived.
>
>I predict that neither Eddie nor any other astrologer will show a
>sensible derivation of this number, based on sound logic.
>
Oh, Paul, that was too easy.
Marsha
widdershins wrote:
>...and yawn and say, "oh, well. It's just Ed trying to impress newbies
> and dupes with a number having a long string of zeros...
There sure are a lot of people who are discussing it though. I think
that would mean they were impressed by it. These are newbies and dupes
you're talking about...
Although I will admit that it would probably impress me too if it had a
"$" in front of it and it was on a check written out to me.
But otherwise just the word "gazillion" or "bazillion" or "tons of" or
"more than you can imagine" or "infinitely" or something to that effect
would have made the point for me.
Marsha
Jim Rogers
Marsha wrote:
> widdershins wrote:
> >...and yawn and say, "oh, well. It's just Ed trying to impress newbies
> > and dupes with a number having a long string of zeros...
> There sure are a lot of people who are discussing it though. I think
> that would mean they were impressed by it. These are newbies and dupes
> you're talking about...
Little _meaningful_ discussion, however, as the number has not been
explained. It's just a BFN which for all anyone can tell was just
plucked out of the air. It's not even a power of 12, as one might expect
for combinations of astrological factors, I don't have a handle on what
root factors other than 12 that there might be (and raised to what
powers), and Ed's Big List of Books provides no clues where to look.
...
> But otherwise just the word "gazillion" or "bazillion" or "tons of" or
> "more than you can imagine" or "infinitely" or something to that effect
> would have made the point for me.
For the terminally easily amused, I suppose. For the rest of us it's
garbage.
Jim
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> > >> This number is infinitely greater than the population
> > >> a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
> > >> Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
> > >> number of different astrological factor-combinations!
> > >> (Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
>
> > >> Noel Tyl, Harvard Psychology Graduate,
> > >> "The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology"
> > >> For student, teacher, professional, page 140, Llewellyn Publications
> > >> ISBN-0-87542-812-5, First edition, 1976, Copyright by Noel Tyl.
> > > So how did Doris Chase Doane arrive at this huge number? Can you show
> > > the expansion, where all the astrological factors work into it? If Noel
> > > Tyl didn't show the expansion, what makes you think you can trust it
> > > implicitly, cited from a secondary source without explanation?
...
> > > number.
> > You won't see it.
>
> > I've asked Eddie that same question several times, and his response has
> > always been the same: silence....
> If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
So how can it be derived? I defer to your claimed knowledge of
astrology. It should be relatively simple, I'd imagine a multiplication
of independent factors, but as I pointed out in my previous post, it's
not even a power of 12. What other numerical factors are included, and
why? Do you even know whether you practice the identical system as
Doane, therefore with the same number of possible combinations?
Jim
Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > >> 5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> > > >> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
> > > >> This number is infinitely greater than the population
> > > >> a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to
> > > >> Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible
> > > >> number of different astrological factor-combinations!
> > > >> (Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2).
> >
> > > >> Noel Tyl, Harvard Psychology Graduate,
> > > >> "The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology"
> > > >> For student, teacher, professional, page 140, Llewellyn Publications
> > > >> ISBN-0-87542-812-5, First edition, 1976, Copyright by Noel Tyl.
> > > > So how did Doris Chase Doane arrive at this huge number? Can you show
> > > > the expansion, where all the astrological factors work into it? If Noel
> > > > Tyl didn't show the expansion, what makes you think you can trust it
> > > > implicitly, cited from a secondary source without explanation?
> ...
> > > > Well I for one would like to see the derivation of that very large
> > > > number.
...
> > If you know astrology you know how it can be derived.
> So how can it be derived? I defer to your claimed knowledge of
> astrology. It should be relatively simple, I'd imagine a multiplication
> of independent factors, but as I pointed out in my previous post, it's
> not even a power of 12. What other numerical factors are included, and
> why? Do you even know whether you practice the identical system as
> Doane, therefore with the same number of possible combinations?
Eddy, about every fourth post to me you ask me "what question about
astrology would I like to see you answer" or somesuch. Well, above is
one, one you seem to be an expert on. How about it? As the full
precision may not be shown, I could only really guess at factoring it,
but it's clearly not a whole factor of 12, at least: log[base
12](5.3937075 x 10^58) = 54.4226... (that is, 12^54.4226... yields that
number). So how is this really, really big number derived?
I can work backwards, partway: 6 x 12^44 x 29,495,877,067 = 5.3937075 x
10^58,
or 9 x 163 x 12^44 x 120,637,534 = 5.39370749927 x 10^58 (assuming she
rounded off). Do any of these intermediate factors ring any bells? The
6, 9, 163, or 12^44, that is (I'd expect the millions/billions numbers
to be factored further).
Jim