BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM

"I just don't get astrology for some reason."

That's because even YOU are too intelligent to swallow anything so full of crap

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM

Thanks, daylia, for going to the trouble to do that. Trouble is, I haven't a clue what the chart actually means. I clicked for the PDF and it gave me something called the 'natal chart' but it could have been in Ancient Greek for all the sense I could make. Is there a link I'm missing?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:41 PM

I can feel my eyes glazing over..... ;-D (Sorry, I just don't get astrology for some reason. Not opposed to it, just don't get it.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:25 PM

Hmm -- and I was born in the morning as well (8:35 am), which probably accounts for the similar ascendant/house cusps...

(sorry, still ruminating ... I can get lost in this stuff ...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:21 PM

Thanks B, and thanks also to whoever changed the place of birth at the link below to Cardigan Wales (52n06, 4w40). Interesting to note the changes in the baby's chart drawing (Ascendant).

The ascendant is now 29 deg 19' Gemini -- still within one degree of the cusp of Cancer. Hmm ... you are very close to Cardigan though. Right, Proud as Punch?

Actually, this child's chart is similar to my own -- Gemini Rising, Sun on the cusp of Pisces/Aries in the 11th house, Venus in the 10th house in Aquarius. And here I was born Mar 24 in Vancouver Canada, decades upon decades ago. Interesting ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

Dalia, try Verwick (small), or Cardigan (somewhat larger), Wales.


Place of birth 52:06:56N, 4:38:55W.

London is 51n30, 0w18 in above format 52:30:00N, 0:18:00W

That's over 4 degrees difference, so not close enough if the ascendent is within 3 degress of becoming another sign

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM

Oops I meant yes 235 miles would put your house placements/ascendant off by quite a bit ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:21 AM

235 miles?? ooooo yes it would.

Is there not a small city or town closer to you? Try entering the names of the cities/towns/villages closest to your home - the nearest ones first. Surely they have more places than "London" listed for your locale!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:27 AM

But as I'm about 235 miles West of London, what sort of effect would that have? Or is that close enough?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM

Proud as Punch, I entered London ENgland as the birth place, and this is the astro click profile for your new baby You can click on any of the symbols, signs, and lines (angles or aspects) for an interpretation of the placement of his sun, moon, planets.

For a printout of his chart and placements, click "Chart Drawing, Ascendant".   They would not do a "personal portrait" for a child under 6 years, though.

The lat/long the site gave for LOndon was 51n30, 0w18 -- pretty close, but not quite. Astrodienst is in Zurich - see how they use a different format? You could mess around with the numbers yourself and see if you can do better ...

Anyway, it would take more than a 20- mile difference to put his ascendant/house placements off by even just one degree, and the ascendant is at almost 3 degrees Cancer - so it shouldn't matter.

I feel so iffy that you are going to look at his chart while he's so new ... please be careful you don't form any preconceptions about him that may turn out to be self-fulfilling prophecies. THe chart only shows "archetypal patterns" and tendencies --- it's NOT the blueprint of his life by any means!

Congrats again and all the best,

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:22 AM

But we don't live in a town! The lat-long is the only way to describe where we live as it's a farmstead. The nearest town is a few miles away, so I couldn't put that in as it would be inaccurate. Although 'London' is an option on that site you gave us, and that's 30 miles across!!! So does the place where born matter very much?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

There's nothing new about this. You could be living in any past century, and you'd have the same stuff to bitch about, Clinton. You enjoy bitching. That's why you love this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

On the subject of Richard Tarnas...

"Not only are 40 million Americans ravenous consumers of astrology and dedicated followers of horoscopes, but, Bobrick says, astrology is reappearing in academe."

Isn't that a wonderful example of the sad decay of academe, in these wilfully ignorant and stupor-stitious times.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM

I gather you're enjoying all this, daylia...? ;-)

Chongo wants to know if you can do a chart for a chimpanzee?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM

*daylia*. Hello again.

In front of everybody, I'll plead ignorance to Tarnas's work, tho' I've come across the name. I hope to follow that up - thanks.

Meanwhile, till next week, I'll carry on watching the show, and mulling on what goes on.

Carry on, people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM

A Lattitude and Longtitude with minutes and second on it is very precise indeed.
At temperate Latitudes, that's accurate to about 35 yards, which should be accurate enough, given it seems to be happy with towns that are rather further than that across...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

Congratulations Proud as Punch! :-)   I'm so pleased for your whole family!!

I tried to enter the data you gave at Astrodienst (one of the very best free astrology sites on the web today imo), but you need to give the place of birth (town, country) as it wouldn't accept the lat/long you gave. Maybe it's not specific enough?

Click here, and enter the birth data to generate a natal chart. IF you're a newbie to astrology, click on the FAQ first for a primer. Or just click on "Astro Click Portrait" and/or "Personal Portrait" for a general analysis of the most important factors. THere's a lot of info re basic astrological principles in those explanations.

But PLEASE remember that a natal chart cannot predict what your new son will be like -- it can only reveal major "archetypal" patterns/types/correspondences, and suggest any number of ways these might manifest in his personality and life circumstances in the years to come.

Have fun! And congrats and best wishes again ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM

OK, astrologers. We have a new arrival - boy, born 10.13 am on March 19. Place of birth 52:06:56N, 4:38:55W.
Can anyone tells us anything about what he's going to be like (or might be like?)
SOOOO thrilled!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:03 AM

Ivor, have you ever studied the work of Dr. Richard Tarnas? He's an American scholar who seems determined to raise astrology from the ghettos of ridicule and public ignorance to a subject more than worthy of academic, scientific attention.

Here's his introductory Introduction to Archetypal Analysis.

The basic principle of astrology is that the planets have a fundamental, cosmically based connection to specific archetypal forces or principles which influence human existence, and that the patterns formed by the planets in the heavens bear a meaningful correspondence to the patterns of human affairs on the Earth. In terms of individuals, the positions of the planets at the time and place of a person's birth are regarded as corresponding to the basic archetypal patterns of that person's life and character.

THe rest of the article explores the nature of archetypes, the question of determinism vs. free will, and why/how astrology works. And here's an excerpt from his latest book, which explores the historical correlations between the movement of the planets and major worldly events/upheavals.

Cosmos and Psyche (pdf format)

Just wondered if you've any insights to share about Tarnas' illumninating work, Ivor.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM

Well said, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Anima
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM

"My life is the story of the self-realization of the unconscious. Everything in the unconscious seeks outward manifestation, and the personality too desires to evolve out of its unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole. I cannot employ the language of science to trace this process of growth in myself, for I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem.

What we are to our inward vision, and what man appears to be sub specie neternitatis can only be expressed by way of myth. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely than does science. Science works with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of an individual life."

- Prologue, Memories, Dreams and Reflections, C. G. Jung, 1961

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: rock chick
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:47 PM

Do I believe, well now that a question....... answer... up to recently I was not so sure, but now, yes I completely believe, and if anyone is lucky enough to meet there soul mate, just check out their star signs with yours and the parallels, it can be very scary, and I bet there are things you would have a great deal of common in, so don't knock it, there is someone out there doing there homework. What ever is meant to be will be, even if it takes years to accomplish.

rc

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM

Now, on the other hand, the I Ching.....................

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

"your grades here are still insufficient"
There's the pot calling the kettle black....

" I really don't care what... you think about astrology"
Then bog off outa the thread.... Oh look... yer still here... still full of shit... and still too blinkered to see it....

" Deluding the public? It's what astrology is all about!"
Deluding the public into spending money on their crap...

"SHUT the FUCK UP"
You first, wanker

"a refuge of the mentally addicted and trivially inane"
You're here, aren't you...

"astrology -- just a waste of time"
Couldn't have said it better myself...   It's a total WOMBAT....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM

Daylia, wouldn't it do your life more good to just ignore them all, go play the piano, take a walk, eat a nice meal? Pretty soon they'd all get bored and go away if you did. Competitive ego needs a response to feed on. If you give it none, it wanders off in search of something else to chew on.

Yes it would, Little Hawk. ANd what you've said has been bothering me deep down for the last two weeks I've been posting here too. I usually don't bother even talking about subjects like astrology -- so controversial and 'unprovable' it's just a waste of time.
But there's a much deeper, more important and highly personal issue here I've been tackling here. One which, as you said, goes way beyond astrology. I'll tell you more sometime, if you're interested ...

Anyway, it's a gorgeous day out there too -- gonna call you in a sec, maybe we can get together this afternoon for some tunes, fresh air, and stimulating conversation? You're warned!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

Oh -- and I'm so grateful for all the useful new words (ie "cove", "bint", "tosh", "JFGI" etc) I've learned from the friendly, all-knowing and oh-so-very-convincing people on this thread.

ANd also for all the brilliant insights such as "The sun shines on every dog's asshole sometimes."

Might just give that last one a whirl as a meditation device (mantra) someday.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:21 AM

Just beacuse we share 98 % of our DNA with chimpanzees, it doesn't mean we are 98% similar to them. This figure should never have been dropped on to people without the background to understand what it means. I could teach someone how to read music, but unless they know it translates into sounds, it's meaningless, just like the Chimp DNA statement.

We share 60-70 % of our DNA with a potato. That doesn't mean it's 60-70% as intelligent as us, although some of the people round here contrdict that rather.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:16 AM

This thread is truly about nothing more than the endless predilection of various self-important egos to assert themselves over other self-important egos whom they perceive as lesser than themselves or threatening to their identity (or both). If you would all just develop enough humility to swallow your pride and leave each other alone and SHUT the FUCK UP, it would end.

The relative merits of Astrology are a really trivial issue compared to a number of the more world-threatening issues daylia mentioned in one of her posts back there. I mean, REALLY trivial!

But what is NOT trivial to the people who keep returning here is their fucking ego victory, is it?

Think of the time you've already all wasted on it. Look at my time I am now wasting by telling you how I feel about it. It's not funny. These are our lives going by here, browbeating each other uselessly over our fucking prejudices and utterly vain opinions about stuff that doesn't matter at all anyway, just for a moment's petty satisfaction that, "Oh, I really nailed her THAT time..."

Good lord. It's pitiful is what it is. This forum is becoming a refuge of the mentally addicted and trivially inane.

Daylia, wouldn't it do your life more good to just ignore them all, go play the piano, take a walk, eat a nice meal? Pretty soon they'd all get bored and go away if you did. Competitive ego needs a response to feed on. If you give it none, it wanders off in search of something else to chew on.

But no, the horrid fascination keeps drawing you back, just like it does me, to view once again the auto wreck at the side of the highway that is this thread.

Curiosity killed the cat, didn't it?

(what joy for the troll that started the thread...way back when...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

Now -- shall we play some music instead? Wanna hear the first verse of my new "Jingle for the Single Finger (or - Ode to the Lonely Digit)"?

Oooo -- that reminds me --- I'm through with astrology for good (what a steamin HEAP that was, and thank you all so very much again for your wise and loving guidance) -- but I'm keeping all 10 of my fingers. I need every last one of 'em for music.

So I probably won't be able to join the Single-Fingered Ranks after all.
Oh well.   *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:33 AM

If you knew just enough to be totally ignorant, you'd realise that those charts ("Mars in the charts of military career people - 158") are totally meaningless. Correlation is a number that varies between 1 (totally related) though 0 (totally unrelated) to -1 (exactly the opposite). It never has values like 158.

Paul, thank you so much. Due to your kindness and goodwill toward me, plus your vast knowledge and lifetime of experience with this subject, be it known that I am now convinced. I'm throwing away all my astrology books, burning my natal chart, and I will never say a word like "Aries" or "Gemini" again in my life.

Yup. I just deleted the shortcut to Astrodienst from my desktop too. Halleluiah! What a relief. You've utterly convinced me, Paul! ANd I owe you my very life.

All HAIL to the mighty God Science!! May It continue to reign over us all, dictating our every thought, action, and imagining forevermore!! Oh, to be endlessly showered, every day, with the many, many comforts, the perfect knowledge and all the miraculous blessings of science and technology!

And oh -- the absolute BLISS of never having to be bothered to come up with original, creative, subjective, independent and unscientifically demonstrable ideas, opinions, thoughts or feelings again!

Someday, now that I've cast aside the atrocious, horrific shackles of astrology, I may even aspire to become just as wonderful, caring, convincing, friendly, insightful, brilliant, well-versed, knowledgeable, logical and highly original as, say, ClintonHammond or Gervase!

Hey, I might even make *Pothole Grade* before this earthwalk is over! YIPPPPEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

Yes Paul, I was being kind about the presentation of the results, as they are nonsensicle without the rest of the study.... But to be fair, gauquelin did find some positive results there (as well as some negative ones), but as described below, they seem to have been wholly explainable by artifacts and biases. Which will mean nothing to a non scientist astrology follower (please note how I manage to conduct this discussion without calling anyone names or making snide comments), so they will continue to blindly believe that this provides support for astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Gauquelin seems to have been the author for most of the studies mentioned, so I will point out the problems with those studies.

There are problems with Gauquelin's methodology. First of all he used the wrong numbers in some of the statistics (using N for number of traits rather than number of subjects) which inflated the findings. Using the correct statistics diminished the effects by a great deal. Secondly, he didn't use a blind procedure - the trait extraction was done by Gauquelin AFTER her knew the positions of the planets. He therefore could have unconsciuosly affected the results. From the astrology and science website: "Gauquelin accepted that a Gauquelin extraction bias had "very likely ... played a role in the [personality] studies", because computer checks of his manual results had confirmed the presence of Gauquelin bias in his sector calculations. But the calculation bias affected his results only slightly, so he felt it was "unlikely ... that [extraction] bias in the studies explains 100% of the results" (Correlation 10(2), 22, 1990). But biassing the translating of trait words (where there is always a range of English words for each French one) is easier than biassing the sector corresponding to a given birth time (where only a small proportion will be ambiguous). And in this case it needed only 1 in 12 translated traits to be biassed to produce the mean observed effect size of 0.10. So Gauquelin could be 11/12ths or 92% unbiassed, at first sight a level not worthy of suspicion, yet enough bias would remain to explain his results."

A replication was done by Ertel (1990) which avoided extraction bias, and no significant effect was found.

There are also apparently problems with older data caused by parents providing birth data and there was evidence that parents faked birth data to suit prevailing beliefs - the effects seem to disappear with newer data when the data is supplied by hospital records.

Astrologers seem very keen to quote those gauquelin studies which found effects, but never seem to mention his negative results...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

If you knew just enough to be totally ignorant, you'd realise that those charts ("Mars in the charts of military career people - 158") are totally meaningless. Correlation is a number that varies between 1 (totally related) though 0 (totally unrelated) to -1 (exactly the opposite). It never has values like 158.

To get a correlation, you'd need all the start signs of the military types, and plot them out. If you found that over huge numbers of people, they were all in, say, Mars or thereabouts, you'd be justified in claiming a high correlation. If very few appeared in Mars, that would be interesting too, as although it would contradict the astrological prediction, it would show a different prediction- that astrology had something in it, even though it was interpreted wrongly. But my bet is that the numbers would be spread almost evenly over the year.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

Oops, that should have read

"And please remember, I'm not saying anything for or against any of the material at that site, other than it looks like you might find it interesting, Bagpuss. For example ..."

Personal first-hand investigation interests and excites me to no end! On the other hand, other people's second-hand observations and conclusions, however "scientific" or supposedly "expert" they may appear to be, leave me at best very skeptical, at worst asleep (or wishing that I was ...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

...and does the same apply to my cat as well? Could you do a reading for Pete? He'd absolutely luurve it!
And what about the tit by the front door. Does it work on the time she hatched from the egg or when the first cracks appeared? And the moth in my attic. Does she have two horoscopes - one for the hatching of the egg, and one for the metamorphosis from caterpillar to moth?
And what about the bacteria round my teeth (I am English, dont you know?)...could you do a reading for them? Based on binary fission, naturally.
Or is it just the species home sapiens that gets its existence mapped out by the random astral bodies visible from planet Earth? What do you reckon a horoscope would be like for the cute but argumentative little green folk of the planet Tharg?
Oh, so many question, and so few answers....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:49 AM

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

Pardon me while I bark!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

Here's a few more "scientific studies" for you to take a look at Bagpuss. I've waded through a couple of them, and I have yet to form an opinion about them either way. Studies of this sort were never really my cup of tea (I prefer first-hand physical investigation wherever possible), but they appear to be yours. So enjoy! And please remember, I'm not saying anything for or against any of the material at that site, other than it looks interesting! For example ...

Conclusion

Scientific astrology conducted according to scientific methods is only in its initial stages. Astrology suffers from being a taboo subject among many scientists, and people attracted to astrology are all too often seduced by the frequently non-rational elements of our discipline.

Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Lyon Lasson (1946)
        

Number

Mars in the charts of military career people   158

Moon in the charts of politicians      134

Venus in the charts of artists   190

Mercury in the charts of writers and orators   209

Saturn in the charts of scholars   66

Neptune in the charts of mystics   50



Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Michel and Francoise Gauquelin (1955) -- 12 or 18 sectors
        

Number

Mars in the chart of military career people   676

Mars in the charts of medical doctors   576 + 508

Venus in the charts of painters   906

Neptune in the charts of priests   884


Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Michel and Fran�oise Gauquelin -- 36 sectors -- [studies done in 1970 and 1984)
        

Sports champions    2089    432

Military career people   3046   630

Medical doctors   2552    969

Scientists 1095    1095

Painters   1473   217 (artists)

Musicians   866
        
Actors   1409    125

Politicians 1013   643

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM

Astrologers are in many ways very much like scientists. There are as many "expert" and contradictory opinions, views and interpretations within the (ancient and vast) field of astrology as there are within any of the more modern social "sciences". Some astrologers may indeed consider their field of expertise to be "testable", "amenable" to the scientific method. Others do not. And in the end, it doesn't really matter.

What matters is that throughout the ages, those who study it seriously and use it wisely find that astrology works very well indeed. With or without scientific blessings, approval, explanations or confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

I am not hounding you, you choose to keep responding to me and I choose to keep responding to you.

Yes we have very similar DNA to chimpanzees, and that similarity is demonstrated through similarities in our behaviours, anatomy and physiology, compared to more distantly related species.

"Certainly people born at similar times and places will also have very similar charts, and therefore very similar potential and tendencies"

Therefore if we compare people born at similar times and places, there is an increased chance that they will display similar traits compared to people born far apart and who therefore are supposed to have different tendencies and potentials. Nobody said anything about them having to be identical, just that for astrology to have any validity, they should be more similar than two randomly chosen people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

I'm no expert, as I've said at least a dozen times here Bagpuss. Why are you hounding me? You said you have no real interest in astrology to begin with, it's all a bunch of hooey and you know it all already -- so why do you even bother to post here?

Certainly people born at similar times and places will also have very similar charts, and therefore very similar potential and tendencies -- so what?

I've heard that the greater portion (almost 90%?) of human DNA is identical to that of a chimpanzee. Some of us choose to develope and display those "chimpanzee" tendencies more than others, though.

You could have been born at exactly the time and in exactly the same place as a bedbug. If you were, that bedbug and yourself would have exactly the same planetary placements yon our natal charts. Does that mean you have exactly the same traits, the same 'pre-determined fate' as the bedbug?

Well, maybe .....    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM

"That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow. "

But surely, if a group of people is born with certain tendencies and potentials, then the manifestation of those tendencies will be more common that those born with different tendencies. Otherwise it really isn't a tendency at all, is it?

For example, I may be born with a genetic tendency to suffer from depression. Now all sorts of other things will affect whether this tendency is displayed in my life, like my family upbringing, negative life events, even the undefinable "free will". But still if you compare groups born with this genetic predisposition or tendency with those who do not have it, you will find more sufferers in the first group than the latter one. The genetic predisposition does dot cause me to have depression, I may or may not display it in my life, but the relationship is still measureable and therefore amenable to science.

You still havent addressed the question of more expert astrologers than yourself agreeing that certain things about astrology are amenable to testing. You seem so certain of your facts and your interpretation of astrology, that maybe now you suddenly decide you are an expert after all, and more expert than those I have mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM

And if you consider how seemingly infinite the heavens really are, you may begin to understand the endlessness of the 'potentials and tendencies' that lie latent within every individual.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:36 AM

That's right, Bagpuss.

Say I'd taken a picture of you just after you were born -- specifically, just as you took your first breath. Would that picture "cause" or "effect" a single thing about your body, your mind, your life circumstances, or your personality?

No. It's just an (objective) picture of what you are at that moment, taken from the 'outside in'.

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM

"Astrology does not produce or describe either "causes" or "effects""

So you would agree with the following statement: "The position of the stars at the time I was born has NO EFFECT on any aspect of the way I am or on any tendencies of my behaviour or personality".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

QED ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM

If astrology describes a real effect,

Still comin apart at the seams I see, Bagpuss.

Astrology does not produce or describe either "causes" or "effects", Bagpuss. Astrology is not a prediction. Remember?

I know it's been at least 3 minutes since you heard this last. Did it it fall out of your noodle again, so soon?

You might consider borrowing a needle and thread and sewing yourself up at the seams.

Try repairing the pre-frontal cortex first.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM

Will scientists ever take full responsibility for all of the horrible consequences of their activities? Maybe someday. But I'm not holding my breath. ANd rest assured till that day comes (if it ever does), there's always be plenty of minions about to help pass the buck and continue deluding the public.

Deluding the public? It's what astrology is all about!
Of course you'd be happier without all those nasty scientists messing up your lovey fluffy make-believe world and pointing out the fatuous absurdity of your beliefs.
And doing nasty things like discovering analgesics so you can have your kids with less pain, and antibiotics so you don't die when you have an infection, and...
But no, they're all the work of horrible scientists. Like the computer you're using to post your drivel, lke the devices you use arund the house to give you time to believe in fairies and green-cheese mons, like the...*sigh*
But perhaps you really would rather live back in the dark ages where superstition and ignorance ruled, where irritants like Bagpuss could be condemned as heretics by the hysterical, and where you could peddle your absurd nonsense for the benefit of the gullible?

To recap what appears to be your position...
"*YAWNNN* lalalala. I'm not going to listen. I'm not going to post any more. Oh yes I am. I'm going to stick my head in the ground with my fingers in my ears. Lalalala. I don't care cos I've got lots of people who DO believe this tripe. Your posts are so juvenile and TIRESOME. I'm not going to listen. No, honestly, I'm not. See, I'm not listening. No. I.AM.SO.NOT.LISTENING! Am I bovvered? Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn. You talk about apples, but I know oranges are made of cheese. "

And to paraphrase: Call yourself an astrologer. Do they let people in from kindergarten to do that sort of thing?
Oh. Clearly they do... In fact, I'll be one myself. Let me pull up a chair and look at the tables...
Ah yes. You were born under a cloud of ignorance, with pseudoscience ascendant. We can be spot-on about the time because your birth was induced as the ob-gyn was playing golf in the afternoon. Your umbilical cord was cut after you drew your first breath, but the nurse didn't log the time for another five minutes. And the clock was fast.
Hmm. I see clearly now. None of this matters yet all of this makes you credulous, gullible and overly defensive of an insecure position.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM

If astrology describes a real effect, that effect can be measured. As to you saying that that astrology is description not prediction, I think you and I are using the words and concepts differently. I am well aware that you dont believe that astrology predicts peoples behaviour etc, but that it describes it. But if it can be described, there are inevitably patterns in the data that science could find. When science talks about making a prediction, it doesnt mean it thinks astrology claims to predict the future, but that astrology makes certain claims (and YES it DOES make claims - claims by astrologers supposedly more expert than you). If these claims are true they can be tested and verified. If they cannot be verified, then the claims are not proven and must be taken as the superstitious nonsense they are. If astrology doesn't make any claims at all, then it really has nothing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:06 AM

Play at metaphysics,

Ahhh .... sounds like quantum physics!

and parasite on everyone else's hard work in your ignorance. Let someone else do the years of study necessary to understand what the REAL problems are.

This will be explored in Chapter 4 of "Pothole Psychology". For excellent examples of this type of behavior, see your own posts here Paul. Bagpuss and TIA's too.

Will scientists ever take full responsibility for all of the horrible consequences of their activities? Maybe someday. But I'm not holding my breath. ANd rest assured till that day comes (if it ever does), there's always be plenty of minions about to help pass the buck and continue deluding the public.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM

Look, Bagpuss et al, sorry bout the slights. Please know that I really don't care what, or even if you think about astrology, or anything else. And vice versa (or if you do care about what I think, that caring is sadly misplaced).

As patient as almost 30 years of getting paid to listen to, correct and improve upon other people's awful-sounding music can make a person, I'm losing it here. And it's not worth the aggravation.

Bye, all.