Challenge to Astrologers
Sherilyn
In article <iShrQnAA$bD0...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, James Thompson
<j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <340DA2...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
>>If you wish explanations of your chart this is fine, but we do not
>>accept "challenges" to prove things here-that is a topic for
>>sci.skeptic.
>
>> ****** ANSWERS ******
>[...]
>>http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
>
>That appears to be a FAQ -- is there not a charter? I'm always
>suspicious of FAQs, especially when they have the flavour of an
>individual with a control problem.
altnet charters tend to be fictional. An unmoderated altnet group is
basically a free-for-all. We're actually quite lucky that here we don't
attract huge wads of commercial spam.
--
Sherilyn
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
James Thompson
[X-posted to sci.skeptic since it is also relevant there]
In order to test the claims made for astrology, I posted a challenge
(together with my place and time of birth) and invited astrologers to
come up with what they could within the next 24 hrs.
Well, 24 hrs on and only one person has been prepared to put his/her
craft to the test:
In article <340e2fc5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, spica
<huangcy!@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>A jovial, optimistic personality.
Not, on both counts, according to those who know me. I tend to be
somewhat serious and cynical. (0/2)
>Well liked,
We all like to think that of ourselves and, no doubt, some people do
like me. Some are indifferent. Others detest me. (x)
>polular among friends
Isn't everyone popular with his friends (or else they wouldn't really be
friends, would they?). (x)
>and enjoy group activities.
No, I definitely don't! (0/1)
>Good communication skill and intelligent.
I like to think so (but so do we all, don't we?). (x)
> Good writing ability, could
>be a writer.
I am a published scientific writer (under a different name). (1/1)
> the
>native is subject to sudden change in mood and will often behave
>unexpectively.
Yes, but isn't this true of most people? (x)
> Ahead of other in thought they are looked upon as odd,
>unconventional, and eccentric.
Yes, but see above. (Also, we all like to see ourselves as ahead of
others in thought) (x)
> Begin free from tradition they excel
>in speculation, gambling and sport.
I am spectacularly poor in the first two. Slightly above average in
sport, but I could hardly be described as excelling. (0/3)
>
>Relationship with parents and siblings: detached or estranged.
My surviving parents and siblings live in different countries to me. We
get together irregularly and our relationships are extremely close --
hardly detatched or estranged. (0/1)
>Marriage relationship involves a lot of anxiety and are unfavorable.
???
Happily (and monogamously) with the same partner for the last 12 years.
Yes, some anxieties sometimes arise, but isn't that true of most close
human relationships? (x)
>4/1997-3/1998 under the influence of Venus, good relationship with
>women.
I like to think so. (x)
Well, thank you for putting yourself on the line by rising to the
challenge -- it is disappointing that you were the only one to do so.
My analysis of the description you gave is as follows:
Of the 8 specific things you said which could be objectively evaluated,
only one (writing) can be considered to be a hit. The other 7 (jovial,
optimistic, enjoyment of group activities, family relationships,
speculation, gambling, sport) were incorrect.
Another 7 (marked (x)) were, I contend, either not able to be
objectively evaluated or were things that are either truisms (e.g.
popular with friends) or those which apply to a great majority of people
in the culture in which I live. Even counting those as "hits" would give
a hit rate of only 53%, something which one could expect to be
attributable to chance. A more reasonable analysis (1/8) gives a hit
rate of only 12.5%.
So, what conclusions can be drawn? On such a small sample (1), it is
very difficult to draw any, except that the methodology used by "spica"
is possibly horribly inaccurate. _If_ astrological influences do affect
us then, I submit, this has not been demonstrated.
I am also aware that some astrologers claim that what astrology presents
are potentialities which are subject to other (eg environmental)
influences and to human free will. This isn't, I submit, easily testable
(if, indeed, it is testable at all). Also, if human free will can
overcome astrological potentialities, then those potentialities become
somewhat meaningless.
Lastly, thanks again, "spica", for having the courage to take part. I do
appreciate it. I hope you have not taken any of the above personally --
it certainly was not intended that way. If you would like to enter into
private correspondence in order to try to establish where your method
failed, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam" and I will get the message.
--
Jim
Rick Ellis
In article <34101B...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <wol...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
>either
Wow! Edmond is complaining about ad hominem attacks! Why don't
you go back and count your ad hominem attacks Edmond? You seem to
post LOTS of them.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST
ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
Colin Dooley <co...@vlc.servicom.es> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>I believe Edmond may be getting the wrong idea about Demon Internet
>> >>Limited. He has tried to email spurious complaints about my postings to
>> >>alt.astrology on two occasions that I know about, each time failing to
>> >>post to the correct address, despite the fact that I have repeatedly
>> >>suggested that he try ab...@demon.net (a correct address, AFAIK, though
>> >>postm...@demon.net is probably safer).
>
>
>He tried it on me as well.
>
>My e-mail address is co...@medit3d.com, and postm...@medit3d.com
>received some complaints.
>
>Nice try Ed, but complaints based on the argument "astrology works,
>and this guy says it doesn't" won't get you very far in the real
>world.
>
>
>*ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK*
>
>
>(over to you, petejam).
>
>(petejam is doing some real net abuse, go pick on him
>- oops! I nearly forgot, he's on your side....)
>
>
>
>--
><\___/> | Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
>/ O O \ | unfortunately, no one we know belongs.
>\_____/ FTB. |
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST
ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970904183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
><ewol...@aol.com> writes
>...
>>>
>>>I believe Edmond may be getting the wrong idea about Demon Internet
>>>Limited. He has tried to email spurious complaints about my postings to
>>>alt.astrology on two occasions that I know about, each time failing to
>>>post to the correct address, despite the fact that I have repeatedly
>>>suggested that he try ab...@demon.net (a correct address, AFAIK, though
>>>postm...@demon.net is probably safer). It's possible that he believes
>>>my attitude toward him is shared by every Demon subscriber. Who knows,
>>>maybe he thinks I run the company, since the only replies he has gotten
>>>so far are a bounced email from ab...@demon.co.uk and some rather juicy
>>>replies from Sutrice and Leonie, my Postmistress and Abusemistress
>>>respectively. ;)
>...
>>
>>Wrong oh great spinstress;
>
>Ah, so you _did_ take my advice and email ab...@demon.net.
>
>As you can see from the below, the response to your email was
>automatically produced. I have had absolutely no correspondence,
>electronic, paper or phone calls, formal or informal, from Demon
>Internet or its agents or representatives on this matter. You
>complained last Thursday, and it's now Friday morning (in England.)
>Your complaint was transparently spurious, and has clearly been treated
>as such. You got much more polite responses from Sutrice <postmaster@si
>daway.demon.co.uk> and Leonie <ab...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, for their
>posts were produced by a human being (myself) rather than a perl script
>sitting on Demon's main internet mail server in Finchley. I rest my
>case.
>
>>
>>Subject:
>> [Demon Internet ABUSE #13392] SPAM: [Fwd: Re: Venus Uranus
>>Homosexuality (was house cusps)]
>> Date:
>> Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:19:36 +0100 (BST)
>> From:
>> <ab...@demon.net> (Demon Internet Abuse Reports)
>> To:
>> woll...@aznet.net
>>
>>
>>Demon Internet ABUSE reports.
>>-----------------------------
>>
>>Thank you for your correspondence - your message :
>> [Demon Internet ABUSE #13392] SPAM: [Fwd: Re: Venus Uranus
>>Homosexuality (was house cusps)]
>>has been received and assigned incident number: 13392.
>>
>>In order help us track the progress of this incident, we ask that you
>>include the string:
>>
>> [Demon Internet ABUSE #13392]
>>
>>in the subject line of any further mail on this subject.
>>
>>For example:
>> Subject: [Demon Internet ABUSE #13392] SPAM: [Fwd: Re: Venus Uranus
>>Homosexuality (was house cusps)]
>>
>>You may do this simply by replying to this email.
Dr. John Tlon
James Thompson <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <340EF6...@mindspring.com>, Marsha
><sharma!@mindspring.com> writes
>>Presumptuous, condescending, insincere, biased, underestimation of
>>others' & overestimation of own intelligence & worth. Negative
>>saturnian, abrasive, rigid, "Brantish".
>What does "Brantish" mean? It's not in the OED.
It's a compliment.
Sherilyn
...
>
>Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
>guys do is confirm my accuracy with every post.
...
Ed, since you attracted us here, the fact that you couldn't predict that
your own behavior would attract us here doesn't speak well for your
knowledge of human nature.
Sherilyn
In article <3411A0...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
...
>
>Trying to make me responsible for your out of integity behavior won't
>work either. You all have been here 3 years before I came aboard. I
>watched you. More spin. I thought you "plonked me'?
...
I have not even posted to USENET for a total of three years. What makes
you think you can get away with bare-faced lies? Oh never mind, I just
noticed the newsgroup you post to.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: why do you post on alt.astrology?
James Thompson <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34101B...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>>What would motivate a
>>person to purposely try to aggravate other groups and post against
>>charters etc. OTHER than pure powerlessness and negativity?
>
>
>What is this charter you harp on about? If there is one (charter, not
>FAQ) that says that questioning astrology is off limit, quote it. In
>other words, put up or shut up.
>
>However, I don't believe that there is such a charter -- your harping on
>about it is about as relevant to reality as your harping on about the
>validity of your astrology.
>
>--
>Jim
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: why do you post this garbage on
alt.astrology?
el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <34101B...@aznet.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <wol...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: mental giant among sci.skeptics posts
first thought. Yet, why does this kind of cretin post on
alt.astrology?
"Karl E. Taylor" <kta...@dragon.illusions.com> wrote:
>
>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>> pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST
>> ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
>>
>Go away fool!
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Karl E. Taylor CEO & UNIX Systems Analyst
>
>Desert Dragon SOHO Solutions kta...@dragon.illusions.com
>
> http://www.illusions.com/ddsoho
>________________________________________________________________________
>Dr. Lao "You know what wisdom is?"
>Little boy "No."
>Dr. Lao "Wise answer."
>
>If you are not on my list of clients do not attempt to reply. Your mail
>will be returned to you undelivered. Anti-SPAM and anti-mail bomb
>mesures in place.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: ed answers anti astro clones who cross post
to alt.astrology
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>See, now who's the control freak who cannot let the poor little
>disillusioned astrologers alone?
>
>> For the Sherilyn is an idiot, you see.
>
>Notable repost from June 1996-
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
>> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
>> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
>> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote;
>
>> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
>> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
>> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
>> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
>> you "right", but through a circular definition.
>
>Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
>Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
>of the horoscope. This will in effect remove any doubts from my mind
>that you are an objective observer, and allow status as peer
>reviewers-as
>they say, and as several scientist types have argued. Because this will
>show that you have studied it thoroughly and your opinions are construed
>from logical premise to the best of your ability with integrity, honesty
>and true skepticism.
>
>Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible. This is
>called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
>premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
>important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
>entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
>all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
>argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
>no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
>astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
>the argument that definitely would lead us to different conclusions
>(most definitely on your part of course)-therefore please state your
>status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed.
>
>Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
>This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
>(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has BEEN
>PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
>makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
>appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
>incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
>
>"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
>for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore,
>we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th
>Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page
>128, "Informal Fallacies".
>
>Any one in the academic community would require MUCH more than this to
>allow anyone to PUBLISH their works let alone debate it with those
>knowledgeable in their own fields.
>
>Otherwise your statement above has serious complications. You and other
>cynics argue the "basis in fact" premise day in and day out. If you
>cannot prove that you have a working knowledge of astrology then any
>further statements you or any other cynic make are fallacious and
>misleading based on the this defect. A fallacy is a defect in an
>argument. Your conclusion is not supported by the premises. You commit
>the fallacy of argument against the person (tu quoque) often. I have
>demonstrated some (a little) knowledge of other disciplines. You have
>demonstrated none of astrology. You attempt to make the astrology
>arguers appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
>
>Here is the chart you must delineate;
>
>Male
>March 24, 1979
>11:26 am lmt
>110E00
>48N24
>
>Explain the reigning psychological need of the identity and how this was
>internalized through the parental structure. Explain how needs are
>reflected through identity/status, worth/extension and
>thinking/perspective profiles based on aspect patterns and networks.
>Demonstrate (when you get to projection techniques) how these needs and
>beliefs are brought forward and reflected in actual reality experiences
>(you may reference any of my works on usenet if you need help).
>
>Please name these patterns and what sort of schema they reflect. Please
>give us your evaluation of the elemental count and how this reflects
>balance psychologically. Incorporate the Sun/Moon blend in this backdrop
>and explain how it affects this blend. Then tie in aspect patterns,
>house rulers and dispositors from this basis.
> Define the greatest fears of the identity and what type of attachment
>schema ie.,
>(F)-autonomous, (DS)- dismissing, (E)- preoccupied and the
>extent of resolution (U) possibilities (optional). Describe the
>identity's energy application mode, need to prove the self, find
>personal and social reflection, needs for opportunity and reward,
>strategic application of the self to avoid fears through the superego
>construct. Explain through planetary structures, patterns and trees how
>it is reflected whether the individual inclines to extroversion or
>introversion patterns and how this would be reflected on the Kiersey
>Temperament sorter by the patterns seen. (optional if you are brave).
>
>Define needs for individuation and self sacrifice and the whole law of
>momentum flow as articulated throughout the self's particular
>perspective. If your inclination is spiritual or karmic you may include
>these ideas, but they must be tied to actual reality experiences for
>verification. Explain how these deductions would be reflected in what
>types of behavior. Explain how at least 5 asteroid bodies add nuance to
>these initial deductions and your plan or recommendations for
>remediation and further or greater articulation of this identity's self
>fulfillment within the 40th year of life.
>
>Please include major arcs, progressions and other phenomena that you
>feel to be critical periods of the identity's fulfillment of self
>actualization (or defeat) and explain how you have come to these
>conclusions. Tie these to the current reality experience suggested at
>the 40th year.
>
>This reflects some of the initial or basic work to be done on this
>client prior to meeting with the astrologer. I will not ask you for full
>workups that are asked for in such tests as I took just this, although I
>was not allowed to use a computer, you can. Again although I had a time
>limit, there is no time limit for you (within reason).
>
>Please identify;
>Tropical or sidereal or whatever, aspect orbs, house systems, dispositor
>mechanics and other pertinent mathematical measurements so there will
>be no discrepancy between comparisons when your work is checked.
>Refer to interpretation models that you are using so we speak the same
>language. In other words the philosophical orientation of the specific
>astrologer or astrologers that you are using in this delineation, i.e.
>humanistic, Jungian, esoteric etc.
>
>If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding (or any
>other cynic foolish enough to continue this debate) I suggest that when
>you come to this newsgroup it will be for an education, to ask questions
>of the many qualified astrologers who post here off and on,
>or to inquire as to information to assist you in the learning of some of
>the above- not for ego gratification to trash those you think
>superstitious. Thank you for your maturity in this matter.
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
>© 1997 Altair Publications
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: why do you cross post to
alt.astrology?
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34101B...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>...
>>
>>Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
>>either, because I outlined your types profile many times and all you
>>guys do is confirm my accuracy with every post.
>...
>Ed, since you attracted us here, the fact that you couldn't predict that
>your own behavior would attract us here doesn't speak well for your
>knowledge of human nature.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: ed answer anti astro clone who
cross post to alt.astrology
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <34101B...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> ...
>
>> >Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
>> >either, because I outlined your types profile many times and all you
>> >guys do is confirm my accuracy with every post.
> ...
>> Ed, since you attracted us here,
>
>Begging the question.
>
>> the fact that you couldn't predict that
>> your own behavior would attract us here
>
>Slippery slope, begging the question #2.
>
>> doesn't speak well for your
>> knowledge of human nature.
>
>Straw man conclusion.
>
>Trying to make me responsible for your out of integity behavior won't
>work either. You all have been here 3 years before I came aboard. I
>watched you. More spin. I thought you "plonked me'?
>
>Yes, the positive path is the integral path. There is no one truth if
>there were only one truth there would only be one person. All beings are
>all the ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the
>creation that it is. It is the disbelief in one's own power that creates
>negativity.
>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
> You have all the tools and all the abilities that you require at any
>given moment to be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe
>you can define yourself to be. You are always in control 100% even when
>you use 90% to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%. No
>one can make you feel inferior without your consent. The recognition
>that the universe has no built-in meaning. The taking of responsibility
>(not guilt) for ones reality BECAUSE you know it is you and your
>creation.
>
>Integrity- Functioning as an integrated whole self, without placing
>power outside of the self, since nothing is outside of the self. The
>recognition that you are as powerful as you need to be to create
>whatever you desire to create in your reality without having to hurt
>yourself or anyone else in order to create it. You are always a part of
>the problem or of the solution, if you are not part of the solution it
>is easy to figure out where you are on the scale (unless of course you
>are involved as an analytically discerning or accurate empathic
>observer-pls see the discernment vs judgment post). You are not
>responsible for anyone only responsible to them by being as much as you
>can be in integrity. All is vibration, and the vibration you are will BE
>the reality you experience EVERYWHERE-ALL THE TIME.
>
>Negative beliefs do not have any more power than positive. So they are
>not necessarily "unfortunate", for every being creates their reality
>utterly as the product of what they believe or have been taught to
>believe is true. There is no one truth, except that THE truth is
>composed of all truths within "All That Is".
>
> Individuals can act in positive ways or in negative ways.
>
>Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
>
>Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
>PARTS.
>
> But the positive individual, by the light by which they shine, will
>simply show the negative individual(s) that they are;
>
>A) Untouchable by anything that is not of a similar vibration. And that;
>
>B) They offer back to the negative individual(s) an offering of a
>choice, a choice to also be positive. If the other(s) do not choose to
>be positive then they can simply go their own way, for that which is
>negative cannot exist within the blinding light of that which is
>positive, it is simple mechanics-PHYSICS. That is all. Even if the
>negativity is intentional the positive person will still extract a
>positive effect.
>
>Action is the manifested conviction of belief-because life happens
>through you not to you.
> Or as Walt Whitman put it.
>"What you are speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying."
>No one can interpret a life or vibrational level at which they
>themselves are not capable of functioning, because all is vibration.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>Bashar and The Association
>Eleanor Roosevelt
Rick Ellis
In article <19970907074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
EWollmann <ewol...@aol.com> wrote:
>You posted in the wrong group for long enough. What difference does it
>make get off. You keep lying about why you are here.
Sure Edmond. Call someone a liar. Has it ever occured to you that someone
that says something you don't like just might be telling the truth?
>You've pissed me off now they'll be some bolts you won't forget. The heck
>with those little stripes.
Maybe you should take a little time away from Usenet. You seem to be
getting way to emotional about it.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
follow up to anti astro clone sheri babys
anti astro tirade on alt.astrology
ewol...@aol.com (EWollmann) wrote:
>>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>>Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:45:23 +0100
>>Message-id: <OwQAjKHj...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>In article <3411A0...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>>...
>>>
>>>Trying to make me responsible for your out of integity behavior won't
>>>work either. You all have been here 3 years before I came aboard. I
>>>watched you. More spin. I thought you "plonked me'?
>>...
>>I have not even posted to USENET for a total of three years.
>
>You posted in the wrong group for long enough. What difference does it
>make get off. You keep lying about why you are here.
>You've pissed me off now they'll be some bolts you won't forget. The heck
>with those little stripes.
>Zeus has spoken
>Metis, Themis, Eurynome, Demeter, Mnemosyne, Leto-Hera....Arise!
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: why is this cross posted to alt.astrology
el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <19970907074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>EWollmann <ewol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>You posted in the wrong group for long enough. What difference does it
>>make get off. You keep lying about why you are here.
>
>Sure Edmond. Call someone a liar. Has it ever occured to you that someone
>that says something you don't like just might be telling the truth?
>
>>You've pissed me off now they'll be some bolts you won't forget. The heck
>>with those little stripes.
>
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
answer to net terrorist ellis & sheri babys
constant harrassement of alt.astrology
ewol...@aol.com (EWollmann) wrote:
>
>>From: el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis)
>>Date: 7 Sep 1997 08:24:35 GMT
>>Message-id: <5utoc3$n2o$1...@ting.ftel.net>
>>
>>
>>In article <19970907074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>EWollmann <ewol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You posted in the wrong group for long enough. What difference does it
>>>make get off. You keep lying about why you are here.
>
>Astrology is the study of the synchronistic interaction of the psyche, the
>physical world and the resulting momentums-or experiences from it.
>When blended with other paradigms of the helping professions it becomes a
>powerful tool of insight, and guide to remediation psychologically towards
>redefinition and reframing of psychic material on all levels.
>It assists us in taking responsibility for the creation of our reality
>through the recognition and understanding of HOW these projected versions
>of our psyche and experience have been created, through our choices in
>belief and definition of the self.
>
>The horoscope can be likened to a photograph of the solar system
>(geocentric perspective of the heavens) at the time of your birth from the
>place of your birth of the positions of the planets against the backdrop of
>Constellational configurations (areas of space). It reflects a web or
>matrix of vibrational frequency, which is then interpreted (not known
>currently in a mechanistic way).
>
> It is a map of the mathematical relationship of the planets to the earth
>and each other at the time of our birth and reflects individuality and
>identity, it does not cause it. The planets REFLECT the archetypal
>references that are inherent in the Multiverse holographically. These
>"ideas" are reflected in all that we see around us because we are one with
>the universe and are that reality. Physical reality is a projection-a
>version of consciousness in material form.
>
> Perhaps this is where superstitious and uninformed beliefs about
>astrology being a mechanistic cause rather than a synchronistic
>reflection-comes from.
>
>Here are a few of the unsubstantiated assumptions about astrology;
>
>1) Astrology is a subject that one either "believes" in or not.
>
>Astrology is not a religion or cult. Therefore faith is not required for
>it to function. It is a subject that can be known and is operationally
>obvious once it is learned. Hence the concept of believing in it is an
>effect of the misperception of what it is. We cannot believe or not
>believe in something that we know nothing about anyway. Sciences are
>beliefs systems it must be acknowledged.
>
>2) Astrology must be an Art or a Science.
>
>Astrology is an Art/Science. The scientific aspect is in the horoscope's
>construction, calculation, and mathematical interrelationship
>measurements between astronomical bodies against galactic backdrop
>(geometrics). The art aspect is in the intuited blending of astrological
>significators into psychodynamic awareness and the communication of this
>awareness and remediation to client. This part like all crafts must be
>mastered before application can ensue. Physics is now demonstrating that
>the consciousness of the observer is intimately connected with the creation
>of the observed. Astrology contains science-but science cannot contain
>astrology.
>
>3) Astrology must be proven scientifically before we can accept it as
>valid.
>
>Astrology and science are two different ways of investigating the
>universe. The horoscope like art, requires sensibilities not found in
>science. However astrology does contain science found in science. But
>astrology is more than science as described above and cannot limit its
>application to such a focused and exclusionary subject as science.
>Science is an ELEMENT of astrology. Since astrology is an Art/Science
>only the scientific aspects can stand empiricism. The Art of
>interpretation may be open to debate as to style or application, but
>VALIDITY is always based on service to client or public-as is psychology,
>stock market forecasting, weather forecasting or earthquake prediction
>(which by the way scientists have never done accurately) NONE of which
>are totally empirically working models. Service is the customers or the
>served's decision and evaluation as to life quality enhancement-period.
>
>4) Astrology influences human behavior.
>
>This myth is the most difficult for everyone. We create our EXPERIENTIAL
>reality utterly and only as the end product of what we believe or have
>been taught to believe is true (although it must be stated emphatically
>that most of these definitions are held in an unconscious state and must
>be acknowledged). The horoscope "causes" nothing. It is a synchronistic
>reflection of other aspects of the self and its definitions OF reality at
>any given moment. A vibrational frequency determination based on the
>self's definitions. The illusion of external reality is just that, real
>while you are focused and oriented to it-but an illusion none-the-less
>"All That Is" or God is all that is, and we are all the different ways
>that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the creation that it
>is-eternally. Philosophers and Religions have long known that the
>"kingdom of heaven is within". This is NOT a new idea.
>
>The value of astrology is in the ability through this reflection to
>understand these beliefs and definitions that we may possess unconsciously
>so that we can acknowledge and own them, once you own them you can
>redefine them. You cannot change something you do not own! Life is a
>configuration of CHOICES. Nothing in the universe has built in meaning,
>we give it meaning by the definitions we hold AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. We
>then attach this meaning to things, then we extract that meaning from the
>neutral props known as physical reality. Astrology helps us understand
>WHAT meanings we may be attaching to "things" and hence WHY we extract what
>we do.
>
>Positive meaning in-positive effect out, negative effect in-negative
>effect out. IT IS SIMPLE MECHANICS. Psychological mechanics- which the
>observer then observes, creates, establishes theories of, propagates ideas
>of, collects data from makes hypothesis about and otherwise CHOOSES TO MAKE
>IT SO!
>Yes- we create en mass an agreed upon collectively established reality
>that appears to be fixed. This is necessary, or we would all have no common
>ground on which to RELATE and share the experience we call physicality.
>
>But that in no sense means that we are bound 100% to it. Each of us
>created the "hallway" of experiential choice at incarnation reflected
>through the horoscope.
> Our actions-unless consciously acknowledged from unconscious belief and
>momentum-are just REactions to the prescription the oversoul (ourselves)
>made as a choice of general thematic "hallway" experiences. The free will
>of the physical self (the oversoul in its physical VERSION) then chooses
>HOW it will go down this "hallway" but go down this "hallway" we have
>already WILLED.
> Our creations have shown this, that even COLLECTIVE limitations are mass
>imposed- we have gone to the moon and back. So we can redefine
>THAT one at any given moment as well. It is a preferential choice.
>
>Astrology's best use, is for the enhancement of awareness, alleviation of
>self imposed limitation, and the promotion of self actualization and
>empowerment through self discovery and positive individuation.
>
>"Do you not know that the Sun and the Moon and the stars and all the
>planets are within you?"
>Origen, mystic theologian.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: ed answers anti astro clones who
cross post to alt.astrology
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: answer to anti astro clone cross posts to
Sherilyn
In article <1ZWeieCE...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <5v2q72$3...@electra.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
><pau...@electra.saaf.se> wrote:
>>In article <0DL+0xAw...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>,
>>Stephen Tonkin <as...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> No such thing as "Standard Time" here. :-) We have GMT (= UT) and BST
>>> (= UT+1).
>>
>>You don't have standard time?
>
>We do, but we call it "Greenwich Mean Time", not "Standard Time".
>
>>CET = Central European Time. There is also WET (Western European Time)
>>and EET (Eastern European Time).
>>
>>Interestingly CET = BST.... :-)
>>
>
>There's a movement to put the UK on CET and on EET (Warsaw Time) in
>summer.
>
>A few years ago I wasin Portugal in the summer when it was on Warsaw
>Time -- local noon could be around 1430 pm !
During the War, Britain was placed on double summer time, according to
my father, who loved the long light summer evenings. But of course, I
guess the astrologers here already knew that, it being so important to
the correct casting of a chart and all. ;)
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>
> pete comments: why is this cross posted to alt.astrology
>
--
Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD
Sir Dave of the Giants
Destroying Angel of Spam
True/False Prophet of the SKEP-TI-CULT®
CULT® Administration Officer #01-22112-324
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7945
bdkw...@geocities.com
Colin Dooley
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
>
> petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
> >
> > pete comments: why is this cross posted to alt.astrology
> >
> I'll give you hint...read the subject.
>
Aw, you forgot to put alt.astrology back in the header.
Here, let me do it....
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
NET TERRORIST ELLIS JOINS
little amateur paul, sheri baby, dooly,
and tonkin in censoring alt.astrology.
el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <340ECB...@aznet.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <wol...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>I put it to the test and use it everyday-one of the main reasons you and
>>your propoganda spinning friends will fail.
>
>You so called everyday "test" is hardly un-biased and not even close
>to controled.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
>> pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST
>> ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh <bdkw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>> pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST
>> ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
>>
>Who knows? maybe the subject had something to do with it. Regardless,
>quit spamming sci.skeptic. That ain't going to help anything.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
NET TERRORIST #3 (SHERI BABY)
JOINS NET TERRORIST little amateur
paul in wasteing alt.astrology band width.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
anti astrology post on alt.astrology
sci.skeptic net terrorist COLIN DOOLEY
Colin Dooley <co...@vlc.servicom.es> wrote:
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>I believe Edmond may be getting the wrong idea about Demon Internet
>> >>Limited. He has tried to email spurious complaints about my postings to
>> >>alt.astrology on two occasions that I know about, each time failing to
>> >>post to the correct address, despite the fact that I have repeatedly
>> >>suggested that he try ab...@demon.net (a correct address, AFAIK, though
>> >>postm...@demon.net is probably safer).
>
>
>He tried it on me as well.
>
>My e-mail address is co...@medit3d.com, and postm...@medit3d.com
>received some complaints.
>
>Nice try Ed, but complaints based on the argument "astrology works,
>and this guy says it doesn't" won't get you very far in the real
>world.
>
>
>*ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK*
>
>
>(over to you, petejam).
>
>(petejam is doing some real net abuse, go pick on him
>- oops! I nearly forgot, he's on your side....)
>
>
>
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
NET TERRORIST DOOLEY JOINS THE
ANTI ASTRO GANG ON ALT.ASTROLOGY.
CROSS POSTING FROM SCI.SKEPTIC
Colin Dooley <co...@vlc.servicom.es> wrote:
>Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
>>
>> petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>> >
>> > pete comments: why is this cross posted to alt.astrology
>> >
>> I'll give you hint...read the subject.
>>
>
>Aw, you forgot to put alt.astrology back in the header.
>
>Here, let me do it....
>
>
>
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Brant Watson
On 5 Sep 1997 18:07:15 GMT, el...@ftel.net (Rick Ellis) wrote:
>In article <34101B...@aznet.net>,
>Edmond Wollmann <wol...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>Just flooding groups with ad hominem attacks against me won't work
>>either
>
>Wow! Edmond is complaining about ad hominem attacks! Why don't
>you go back and count your ad hominem attacks Edmond? You seem to
>post LOTS of them.
He's *entitled*, we're not. He's a professional, you know. He
survived death, too.
Brant