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

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM

I see - I appear to have misread this thread entirely.
Daylia is the one whose intellectual rigour grants her access to the truth, and folk like Wolfgang - just a dumb scientist after all - are ignorant! And my own 'beliefs' are actually shaky and vulnerable.
Now it all becomes clear. In fact, so clear that daylia has won me over. I've changed my mind - I'm convinced; astrology is real and scientific methodology is all wrong. Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?









*sheesh*
But, to return to a dull coda, before I sign on the dotted line, is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible? Or do we really have to go on the admittedly rather more sophisticated basis of daylia's "Cos I said so"?
Hands up those who would want to go down that route for, say, medical treatment?
On the one hand they could have a procedure proven and repeated by practitioners and subjected to empirical scrutiny and peer review, and on the other they could have some procedure recommended on the say-so of someone who admits that they haven't read much about the subject, and no, they can't point to any proof that it works, but - hell - it does work BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Form an orderly queue please...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:20 AM

Daylia -

Smiley follows snide comment on 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM.

Now please cite date and time for any post I have made that contains any nasty comment directed at you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM

Hah, this astrology stuff is brilliant. I can get away with murder, and people will still think I'm lovely. I've just followed *daylia*'s link to get my own reading and it says:
You have a personal chemistry that never fails to stimulate people to be friendly toward you. No one should feel any discomfort with you because you project yourself freely and honestly.
You relate easily to all types of people and are friendly to everyone, regardless of their social status.

In fact it says I'm an all-round, splendid sort of chap. At the risk of embarrassing myself, it went on:
Your mind is versatile but strong...you have sufficient taste to set aside your desires... possess a flair for the life of nobility and regality...rank, generous, and amiable disposition...always act better as a leader than a subordinate...sincere and affectionate relationships...Imagination, a tenacious disposition and ability to relate to the public are among your attributes...Destiny may grant you sufficient strength of character and even opportunities to carry out your wishes to their utmost...
Of course, anyone who knows me will recognise this fine fellow!

But then I started putting in other times and places, and they all came up with wonderful people; people who were honest and true, who had the potential for great success and happiness - I realised that I was all things to all men, and wholly wonderful, whenever or wherever I was born. Oddly, in none of the readings was I told I was a gullible fool to be seeking answers through astrology. There was, however, a link at the bottom of each reading which said: "Making a fortune with Astrology".
Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?

That secret is revealed only when the nose conjuncts Uranus, Gervase. So if you really really need to know, assume the position!

Too inflexible, you say? Tsk tsk. Here's another option, then.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:46 AM

GUEST - Yeah, but who (or what) created that dustbin man Reg????

Well???? (grin)

Life itself is so impressive, why make up an anthropomorphic God figure as the agent of it?

Most chimps, I am sure, would come up with a chimpanzee God. And they'd be right, in a sense, because the highest intelligence identifiable as moving through the chimpanzee archetype would be exactly what gives them life. Fish would come up with a fish God. They'd be right too.

The wisest is s/he who comes up with a God that is the intelligence and energy that brings forth and sustains ALL forms, not just one's one familiar form.

A study of advanced Vedanta (Hindu religion) or Buddhism or Taoism will shed much light on that. Buddhists and Taoists don't personalize God in a human form at all, but they recognize a divine and intelligent order at work in the Universe. Hindus superficially characterize that same divine order in the symbolic forms of many Gods and Goddesses, but they realize that those are simply outward symbols...aspects of something indefinable and omnipresent.

I find the Eastern religions, in general, to be far more perceptive than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate when it comes to this sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Pleasing analysis there, Gervase! ANd along the same lines, here's the section of my own report that I enjoy most, describing a Gemini Ascendant.

And I'm sure even the potholes here will agree it sounds absolutely nothing like me!


"Gemini is the third sign of the zodiac and among its key psychological influences over life there are the following: intellectual activities, humanism, and abhorrence of violence, constant doubt of all mental concepts, hesitancy and academic interest.

People whose ascending sign is Gemini usually appear as elegant, slender, expressive, and with very humane facial expressions. They are individuals with some literary inclination, dexterous with manual labors and crafts, apt, able, witty, inventive and very curious and subtle.

A Gemini in the ascendant will always distinguish herself by her rather eloquent speech and writing, her much occupied daily life, and her perpetual lack of an ability to effect swift and determined decisions. As a Gemini, you should try to compensate your hesitancy with fast thinking.

Your disposition to life-events will be kind and generous (within bounds) but not always fortunate, because of too much vacillation in decision-making circumstances. You possess the capability of rising in life because of your own intellectual assets.

Your mind is open and generous, and your intellect self-sufficient; yet on many occasions, judgment will appear as "twisted". You should restrain useless discussion, strife, and unprofitable argument as they're your worst enemies.

To achieve success, you should stress your literary and scientific studies, give free hand to your brilliant intellect in warranted circumstances, and apply your diligent nature to writing, traveling, communications, and human analysis. In all these activities you are at your best.

Mercury, the ruler of your life, appears in the twelfth house. This is the house which represents the darker and uncounscious nature of people as well as sorrow. The presence of the ruler here inclines you to be extremely introverted and to conduct your life along lines that are private to the utmost degree.

Because of your Gemini life-traits, your versatile and clever mind becomes very interested in the occult, loving to engender and implement intellectual plans with haziness and ambiguity."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:50 AM

I'm just putting it down to the avoidance of cognitive dissonance.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

...or dissonant cognition?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

(Paul Burke....I have tossed Occam's Razor into these discussions a few times in the past...the usual response goes along the lines of "Oh, that's just YOUR belief, and why should I accept it when it has no more basis than mine?" ...it's useless to explain why it's a form of a universal logical principle)

ummm...Little Hawk. The point is, I don't consider *life* to BE something that one "believes in". That is a category error. Life is a scientific, technical term for matter that is so constituted as to be able to replicate and reproduce.
   Do you consider lichen and bacteria and yeast spores to be 'concious'? If you do...(yes, I have read enough of your point of view to see why you might)...then we can't even talk. I do NOT believe, assume, postulate or accept that there is some 'life force' totally indepemdant FROM the material world that gives parts of the material world 'awareness'. Might be some, but I sure don't know how we could even theoretically be aware of it, so just shrug when it is put forth as fact.

So, for me, life is one form OF matter, and consciousness is an aspect of a very complex form of matter...a "critical mass" is one way to say it. I don't believe flowers are 'conscious' when they exhibit phototropism, and I don't attribute 'reflective self-concern' to beetles and sagebrush. I do have a 'reverence for life', (though I worry about the term being misinterpreted) insofar as I believe that humans should not use their complex self-aware status to set themselves above the rest of life and wantonly destroy other forms. It simply is not in their best interest. I do NOT think, however, that it makes any cosmic difference. The Universe simply doesn't 'care' whether this tiny little planet or its inhabitants survive for 100 years or a couple more billion. WE care, because we CAN care..."care" is a word that only makes sense for higher forms of life which do have 'consciousness'..(the way *I* view consciousness)...(I am not sure whether Chongo 'cares', but that is largely a matter of arbitrary drawing of lines ...I'll gladly include him for the sake of the discussion ☺)


...well, this has strayed from Astrology, but in a couple more paragraphs, I could make points about the relationship of beliefs and knowledge and why 'belief' in principles of astrology are related to beliefs about 'universal life force'..etc..but you see where it all leads....


and...*daylia*...if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

(hey,Gervase...I, too, seem to be a pretty good, inteligent, sterling fellow, according to my chart...I wonder why two smart guys like us didn't start earlier and make 'get rich from astrology' if it's so useful & important? Maybe it just ain't in the stars...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:15 AM

"Fish would come up with a fish God."

*big grin*..I actually have a cartoon with two goldfish in a bowl, with one saying."Ok, smarty, if there's no God, who changes the water?"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM

Anthropomorphic, moi?

Reg is a fish.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM

"Cos I said so"?

Gervase, those are your words, not mine.

I know about astrology I know - and yes, I do mean know! :0) - through (in order of importance) a lifetime of ongoing, direct physical first-hand observation, experience and study (ie 'intellectual rigour').
Apply yourself to the study of it in like manner, and you will eventually know everything you want to know about it.

Oh yeah ... I remember. You ALREADY know everything there is to know about it via your own ignorance, inexperience, preconceptions, biases and carefully selected scholarly peer reviews. Hmmm ... this is probably how every pothole already knows it all about everything there is to know.

Hey, maybe I'll write my thesis on pothole psychology, just for fun! You folk would make the most excellent of subjects, too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

.if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

Those are your words, Bill, and yup the rest of your words sounded a bit pained, so I took 'em at face value.

Don't like them now? You could always eat 'em then .... ;-)

The only thing I have spent on this thread is way too much time -- but that's becaues it's been so COOOOOOLD here for the last few days I've been housebound mostly. Can't thing of a thing I've 'invested' here though. I'm not here for the 'returns.

Are you?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

I can see I may regret that 'pothole' metaphor.

ok, eating a few words won't hurt my diet much...I guess I need to learn to carefully avoid any hint of ambiguity in certain situations. I hope Bill Gates doesn't read this and sue me for accusing HIM of 'messing with my life'...he's got lawyers and technicians that might be able to interfere with my............fffffzzzzzzzzzttttttttt..hey, no!....zzzzzzaaaappppppppp.... wait...I didn't mean it!

∞~~~~~~~~~~~~~~glllarg............

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

I consider everything to be conscious, Bill...even atoms. But not everything is capable of expressing that consciousness in a way that is clearly recognizable. A plant, for example, cannot speak audibly. It can move, but only so slowly (and in such a limited way) that we don't see it, except when we use time-lapse film and speed it up. Thus, a plant is not capable of expressing its consciousness in a way that is immediately recognizable to a human being...but...they do react to things in an intelligent manner.

I consider atoms to be alive. All atoms.

That life is what I call "God" (if I want to), and that life never ends, it just keeps changing from various forms into various other forms. I think it's intelligent and aware, not accidental, and I think it is a single unity expressing itself as uncountable numbers of individual and apparently separate forms, right down to the atomic level.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

[too late, Mr Bill D. You have gone too far]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I wonder what Daylia think science is?? Does she think it is simply an area like astrology which uses its own arbitrary rules to think round in circles and has no relevance to anything else?

Well science is simply someone saying: If X is true what would we logically expect to follow from this (Y)? Here is a test which would determine if Y is in fact the case. If Y is not the case, then this undermines the theory of X. How can anyone argue that this has no relevance to any other discipline? One can argue about whether the logic determining the experiment is correct, or whether the experiment is a true test of Y, but not about whether science is relevant or not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

TIA, do your own research. Or get your co-workers to do it for you. The snide comments directed at me and at astrology here - from you, and the other resident potholes - have been very entertaining. It's wonderful to watch a bunch of intelligent sounding ignoramuses attempt to throw mud at a target they know nothing about.

And all good things must come to an end .... and the time is now (the walrus said).

THe meaning of this will be revealed to all potholes in due course. And .. *gasp* yes! Even without the help of astrology!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

The mutual contempt and sheer dislike creeping through the cracks everywhere on this thread could strip the scales right off a komodo dragon lizard....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Just for the record, I feel no dislike or contempt for anyone on this thread. I merely find their logic hard to fathom.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

"you see only what you want to see"
There's the pot calling the kettle black!

"As far as I'm concerned, life is God."
There's a guy living in the Group Home across the street who is convinced that Ronald McDonald is god... I give him just as much creedance...

"Without any awareness there is no life."
So, the grass and the trees aren't alive?!?!
What a load....

" I don't give a frog's patootie"
So then get outa the tread....

" Have yourselves a star-studded day now,"
How's about you go back through this thread and try answering ANY of the questions put to you? Otherwise, go hug a rainbow...

" What I said is the truth."
You wouldn't know truth if it mounted your roughly from behind....

" I consider atoms to be alive."
What a crock.... When I was 5 I thought rocks were alive...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:51 PM

Ditto - though I have to admit that I find it hard sometimes not to feel contempt for those who fly in the face of reason and who argue from such tenuous positions.
But *daylia*, to repeat; is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible?
I would really like to see one.
In fact, show me one and I will change my cynical, sceptical view. Surely, with the benefit of your years of knowledge in the field, you can lay your hands on several...?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

Clinton, the living atoms in your body have been assigned a tedious, vicious, and thankless task, but they are doing it faithfully. Be glad of that.

I really enjoy your nasty attitude at times. I do. It's fun to read. Y'all come back soon, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

"a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible"
No such beast exists.... And well, Daylia here has shown she's incapable of answering ANYTHING that challenges her myopic little fantasy-world view... So don't hold your breath....

"the living atoms in your body"
Again... a load of horseshit LH.... You sound like you need to have your meds adjusted...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM

Ya don't say...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

You're disappointing, Little Hawk, why do you stop at the atoms? Electrons, neutrinos, quarks are miffed by your atomism.
Look, even the physicists admit life at subatomar level, why else would they sometimes use the expression "the particle zoo".

Wolfgang (utterly dayliuded)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

*escaping from from Micro$oft Purgatory long enough to giggle at Wolfgang's control of cross-language turn of phrase*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me write, and sent it anyway.

This thread has really become depressing. . Mercury must be in retrograde.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

"Mercury must be in retrograde."

It has it's ups and downs.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM

Good point, Wolfgang. ;-D You are quite right about that. Yes, one can go smaller than the atomic level in that analogy.

Hey, Clinton, don't let me disturb you with things that don't enter your narrow range of perception. Look, if it wasn't for the joy of being "right" ALL the time, why else would you even bother posting on this thread? You wouldn't. It's not about anything that really interests you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:25 PM

My perception isn't narrow...

And it's good to be open minded... just not to the point where your brain falls out...

I'm interested in hearing Daylia answer ANY of the questions that have been put to her, in something other than New Agey double-talk and mystic-babble...

You could try thining it out while yer at it too LH.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM

"I consider atoms to be alive"

If I came here and said "I can fly" you'd certainly expect some proof would't you?

That you consider something to be true doesn't MAKE it so....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

When I started studies on Physics, I did have some elementary questions unanswered because I was simply an ignorant but curious student. You know what ? Teachers and books answered my questions on those subjects that were investigated, and told me how they did the research. When something remained unanswered for science, teachers and books challenged me to become a scientist and find the truth. So I trusted in science.

Nobody answered my most elementary, stupid questions on astrology, as far as I dedicated some weeks to that subject. Each time I ask for an explanation (to someone who says that he/she KNOWS)I am treated as an ignorant and recommended to dedicate my life to the study of astrology before opening my mouth.

That´s why I consider it a superstition that makes many people feel comfortable on how they behave. And a big business like many other superstitions.

Un abrazo from Buenos Aires
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM

No, Clinton, I would assume you meant in an airplane or with a hang glider or something. I don't have such a low regard for your intelligence or sanity that I would imagine you to be under the illusion that you can flap your arms and become airborne.

I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology. It is unrealistic of anyone to expect daylia to prove it to them. She can't. She can only give a subjective opinion based on her own personal experience.

There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove. Always have been, always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

" I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology."
That's because it isn't a science...
And the onus isn't on 'disproving'... it's on proving....

"There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove."
Nothing unreal exists.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM

LH is right. Science cannot "disprove" astrology (in fact, it cannot disprove anything). However, the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested. Apparently even proposing such testing is considered snide, and the work of ignoramuses. I apologize to anyone whose feelings have been hurt. I hope you will see that some people search for knowledge using the method of science, and it is not meant as a personal attack. Hmmm. Perhaps it would be best to stick to answering only the rhetorical thread title questions.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM

"the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested"

And every time they are tested, they only succeed at the same rate one would expect from random chance...

But still people try to claim that it 'works'... when there's good evidence that shows, in fact that it does not....

again, the word for that is 'delusion'

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:05 PM

I agree. Nothing unreal exists (except as a thoughtform...an unreal thoughtform can exist, and can affect people profoundly...but that's another whole discussion).

My definition of "life" is just more wide-ranging than yours, Clinton. I am not describing something that "doesn't exist" when I say that atoms and subatomic particles are alive. I'm talking about something that does exist, that has been observed, that behaves in an energetic fashion, forms coherent associations with other such particles, transmits and receives energy, and as far as I am concerned is alive.

Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing.

There is no burden of proof on anyone, unless they say that you MUST believe as they do or you're wrong or crazy. I don't say that. It's perfectly all right with me if people don't believe atoms are alive or if they don't believe in astrology. What difference could it possibly make? I'm not so all right with them ceaselessly attacking and ridiculing anyone who DOES believe things they don't, though. I mean, what business is it of theirs to browbeat everyone else into their particular view of what is real and what isn't?

That's why I say that the real reason you show up on all these threads about the paranormal or the unusual is not because you're interested in the subject matter, but because you relish the thrill, the ego boost of being "right" at someone else's expense and making fun of them and telling them they're an idiot. You love it. Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer, and a slew of other things like that you find ridiculous and unreal you wouldn't have your daily thrill of coming here to get your jollies by verbally pissing on people who happen to believe something you don't believe.

You'd get bored and probably go somewhere else where you could find someone else to pick on.

However, there will always be such people here, so I'm sure you'll stay. It's a symbiotic relationship. You are the kicker, they are the kick-ee. You're a lot like a born-again Christian. You just WILL not leave people alone if their beliefs don't match yours.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM

"and as far as I am concerned is alive"
That and a buck 50 will get you a small cup of cruddy coffee....

"Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing."
And because you do proves what? Nothing... Again... you're caught up in your quasi-mystical-blabber-speak...

"Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer"
This world would be a much better, more intelligent place..... I'll wager we'd even smell better...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

But, Clinton, I am not trying to prove anything. I am merely talking about something I find interesting. You're the one who is trying to PROVE something all the time. (And Bill too, although he's much nicer about it.) You're trying to prove that you are right and other people who don't see it your way are wrong.

I wager that without THAT nasty little ego habit causing trouble and wars all over the place the world would be better off too.

You're the one who demands proof, you're the one who acts like he has it. But you don't. You're just another big loud opinion. Your knowledge, like that of all people, is limited and fragmentary, and is badly compromised by your culture, your background, and your tendency to ignore or discredit whatever you don't already accept.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

Clinton is very hostile, which is what I don't care for. There's no justification for it--he seems to feel that he is entitled to be rude simply because he believes that he is right. Bad form.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM

You wanna see hostile? Fuck off M.Ted.... If ya don't like the thread, you know where the egress is....

"I am not trying to prove anything."
Then why do you cry so loudly when someone dismisses your mystical blatherflop?

And well, what you 'know' about me ain't worth a hill of beans...   You don't KNOW but what I chose to show you here.... So once again, your 'voice' is muffled by your buttocks....   But that's o.k.. I'm accustomed to you sounding like that....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM

LOL! By God, it would be a treat living downstairs from you. Then I could know so much more about you...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:44 PM

**Bill Gates lawyers decided they'd get in trouble for holding me.....**

(Clinton...where do I send the 50¢ I promised for making ME look like a relatively good guy?)

LH...I hope you don't really believe I am trying to prove anything.

one....more...time... Almost my ONLY claims are about bad and irrelevant arguments and specious resoning. Note my first post in this thread:
""...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest."

I respond to both implicit & explicit claims. When someone states "...known to be associated with..." they are implying that any reasonable person 'ought' to see that association and thus grasp the 'truth' that those wise folks have so laboriously worked out for centuries!

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows" and that we who doubt are some combination of ignorant, inexperienced, biased and snide.

You, LH, regularly make other statements that read LIKE claims...then sometimes sidestep and say "no one has to agree if they don't want to"....thanks a bunch...*wry grin*...We snide & biased folks with our blind spots and tricky rhetoric sure appreciate the release from THAT obligation.

Really and truly....all I am doing....my ONLY wish...is to see the argument/debate carried on without dubious claims, bad reasoning and character assassination when disagreement results. As I posted in response to your prodding questions, I am concerned that alternate opinions appear when dubious claims are made...and that it is clear WHERE the crux of the debate lies. (This is almost always the hardest point to make!)

I repeat, I don't expect to have someone who is ^{up to here} in these beliefs change their minds because I poke at their methods and defense. But if I can inject ANY note of concern for what really passes for validation and even statistical support for a claim, then I will be, if not satisfied, at least relieved.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM

So, you are debating mainly for the enjoyment of examining the subject with a critical eye and engaging in the gentlemanly process of rational debate itself, Bill...while Clinton does it mainly because he loves to verbally shit on people and flex his BIIIG muscles online! ;-D Yup, he does make you look like a good guy (and you are a good guy). You should've paid him at least five bucks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:24 PM

He said he'd do it free...the 50¢ was my idea. ☺

I dunno...we all have our styles and notions of how blunt we need to be to make a point. CH has never been shy or deceptive, and he uses his own name ...and seldom swears or starts a fight...*shrug*

   But he does tend (you listnin', Clinton?) to cause opponents to bristle and harden their stance and lash out at ANY perceived insult, rather than quietly explain. It kinda tilts the discussion into a flame war at times.

Free expression can be wielded like a bludgeon....

"You can catch more flies with honey..." etc..

(I know, Clinton, you prefer to swat ALL the flies....but you are just makin' em irritable)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows"

Only because it's true, Bill.

I know what I know (which is only a teensy weensy smidgeon of what there is to know) about astrology through direct first-hand physical observation, experience, and personal 'intellectual rigour' (ie study).

To answer the rhetorical troll of a question that started this thread, no. I do not 'believe in' astrology. (Or anything else, in fact).

Kinda feels strange to be on the same team after all, eh?    :-D

Oh, and about them potholes ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Just wanted to add that what you don't choose to know about astrology can't hurt you. And what you do choose to know about it can be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 PM

at least it wasn't a donkey...(elephant is Republican mascot...blocking the path of progress is normal for them.)

I 'spose you can guess that I'd suggest that what you 'know' is your subjective experience, rather than the source of it or that it represents 'fact'.....

just a suggestion...






I can do WHAT with my suggestion?...Madame!