ummmm...Bagpuss made it clear in several posts that she was female...

but, to the point:
"... are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art ... of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report,"

If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing , would you have to try it 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?

Or in both of those cases, could you decide for yourself that the very conditions and acceptances necessary to participate were outside the boundaries that you recognized as safe, sane and reasonable?

Yes, I know that metaphorical examples can't quite pinpoint the exact issues involved, but they do show how difficult it is to convince someone of the value of something when they cannot accept the very basic first premises of the argument necessary to go a lot deeper into the experience.

Astrology requires suspending belief about certain rules of physics, logic and scientific method in order to grant credence and validity to a system based on hearsay, Gerrymandered statistics and ambiguous, emotionally loaded language.

I looked up my own chart on that page (based on precise time and location) and saw some things that 'seemed' to fit me, as well as some that didn't...and when I looked at daily 'readings', I read suggestions and generalized 'wisdom' that are, indeed, pretty good advice for almost anyone. I can easily see why many people get some 'help' and ideas for looking at their life from these writings.

It is a VERY common and understandable habit for people to look at an event, discussion, religion, political platform, etc., and extract from the complex format those things which feel relevant, applicable, and comfortable to themselves, and conveniently ignore or rationalize the stuff that they don't like or can't deal with.....
As you have seen, I (and some folks like Bagpuss) require more than elaborate charts and persuasive exponents with extensive 'history' to persuade us that the ***BASIC PREMISES*** are well founded. It is, like religion, a belief system.... stuff is claimed that cannot be verified or measured directly, and people like me, with built-in filters, can only shrug when we are told that "if we'd only study more detail and 'open ourselves' to the entire gamut of the knowledge base, we'd realize it's power to explain.....

Sorry...*smile*....but it all boils down to "you have to believe before you can know.", and some us just don't work that way...just as some are predisposed to be comfortable with it.

as one friend of mine said many years ago when she was looking up my chart, and I explained that I didn't put much stock in that stuff......"Oh...yes...that's JUST what your chart says you'd say!"

*grin*...can't argue with THAT much!