From: mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson)
Subject: Re: another case study in hatefulness by the "open-minded"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:21:31 GMT


(CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

>Let the record show, yet again, who lit the flame-thrower and what innocent
>target it was pointed at.  As long as
you guys keep up the flames, 
>>>alt.astrology will be Hell.  It's that
simple. 

>[Gratuitous and completely atopical personal attack on me conveniently
> omitted from Mark's post]

>> 
>>******************************************************************************
>>Dave:

>> 
I said:
>>I know you feel it's your duty to "enlighten us" on why astrology couldn't
>>possibly work based on your scientific evidence that disproves astrology. 

Dave's response:
>Wrong.  I don't feel I have a duty.  I'm just here for fun and enlightenment.

But don't you concede that there's not anything that anyone could say or
do short of several completely "scientific" studies that would covince you
that astrology is valid?  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you
don't realize how your postings come across to people: Hostile, "I am
*right* and here's my proof".  How open-minded is that?  People do take
your postings personally because they're sharing a part of themselves
when they post their ideas, only to have their ideas beat down by you
because you purport to having some more accurate or scientific knowledge
that "proves" that they are wrong.

I stated:

>>However, as I have stated before, this is an *astrology discussion*
>>newsgroup, i.e. those who find astrology interesting, fun, intriguing,
>>useful, etc.  

Dave says:
>Clearly it is an astrology newsgroup.  You seem to think that includes only
>those who are advocates of astrology. 

No.  But we already know that you think astrology is bologna and couldn't
possibly work.  So then I say, without a certain degree of open-mindedness
on your part, what could you possibly contribute in a positive manner
towards the discussion of astrological issues given your personal feelings
about it?  Are you trying to save others from developing a belief in
astrology by continually attacking us and pointing out how *wrong* we all
are? In your mind, do you ever believe there can be more than one *right*
answer? If you think there is only one right answer for every question,
then astrology is definitely not your thing.  I recently asked people to
post what house systems they used and why, and almost everyone responded
with a different answer.  That might be hard for you to relate to because
to all those people who responded, the system(s) they use are *right* for
them based on their own experiences.  There is no right or wrong answer. 
It's not a multiple choice question.  I don't ever recall reading anything
positive from you -- maybe I've just formed an unfair judgment of you
based on my overall impression of the tone of your postings. So what
astrological topic would you like to make a positive contribution to? 


>newsgroup (hell, there probably even is one) devoted to Marxism would not
>require one to be a Marxist to post there.  Nor would a group about say
>astronomy require one to be an astronomer.  Obviously some knowledge of the
>subject matter is needed to post sensibly, but I have assiduously tried to
>amend the lack of knowledge about astrology that I had when I came to this
>group (at the same time remember that I was casting horoscopes when I was about
>12).

But are you genuinely interested in gaining more information about
astrology?  If so, it certainly doesn't show.

I said:
>>There are hundreds of newsgroups on varying topics so users can find the
>>subjects that interest them most.  I don't spend time reading groups that
>>don't interest me, do you? 

Dave responded:
>Nope.  Is your point then that I must be interested in astrology, and hence
>entitled (under your criteria) to post here, since I have read the group for
>8 months or so, and that is sufficient evidence of an interest?  I must confess
>to having lost your line of argument here.


I said:
>>Those people who remain committed to astrology have felt, I'm sure in some
>>way, that the information that they have received or gathered was or is
>>useful in some way.  That is for them to decide and you not to worry about.

Dave said:
>Absolutely.  It is only when I hear the president of the United States is
>using astrology to make foreign and domestic policy decisions that I really
>start to worry.

Oh, I wouldn't be too concerned about it.  Maybe the outcome might even be
better if we would learn to follow our own inner knowledge (intuitions) more.

I said:
>>Let people believe as they will -- they and we are in no way a threat to you
>>and your beliefs.

Dave said:
>In general it is not my beliefs that I worry about.

Don't worry about us, we can take care of ourselves.  Overall, I think
astrology is far less destructive than other belief systems that poeple
align themselves with.  

>>There is enough room in this world for diversity and there are,
>>I'm sure, enough topics covered in Newsgroups that you could find at least
>>one where you fit in.

>On diversity, yes.  I am part of it.  So are you.  You seem to be saying
>"diversity is great because it allows everyone to participate in sheltered
>groups of others who agree with them".  I am not the one calling people names,
>nor am I advocating censorship, nor promoting coerced ideological conformity
>by incessant personal attacks.
>I think what I write is appreciated by more people here than you suggest.  I
>have had a number of interesting discussions both publically and via e-mail.
>If it weren't for these, I would have hit the road long ago.

>>Maybe you could sit down with yourself for a moment and ask yourself why you
>>feel a need to slam other people's beliefs.

>I am not slamming anyone's beliefs, per se.  From time to time I may point out
>that they are not justified in the particular way their holders try to
>suggest.

But justified according to whom?  You?  How is it that your opinion is so
important that you feel compelled to "enlighten us" on the errors of our
ways?  Of course you are welcome to respond, we can't stop you, but you
don't need to be so negative.  We know that you're probably going to
disagree with anything that we say that is not scientifically based -- but
as you are already aware -- many of us aren't believers in astrology
because we have read scientific studies.  We don't need to, which we also
know you have a idealogical problem with.  Sorry.  That only shows that
you put faith in scientific data only.  Others will choose to "blindly"
(as you call it) support a belief in astrology.  We also know that this is
difficult for you to understand.  Sorry.  

In the final analysis, we would all "love" to hear a positive remark about
astrology from you, but we're not holding our breaths.  I certainly would
love to discuss astrological issues with you -- but I don't think I could
relate to your (in my opinion) overly analytical MO.  

>[more relatively presumptuous psycho-analysis omitted]

But did any of it ring true?

>>You rely on can be known by the rational mind and shut everything else out.

>(sigh).  Categorized, generalized, and stereotyped again.  Synopsis of typical
>exchange with an astrologer here:

>Astrologer: Astrology does X.

>Me: Why do you believe astrology does X?

>Astrologer: I have seen for myself that astrology does X.

>Me: I would like to determine for myself whether astrology does X.

MARK:  You can determine for yourself whether astrology does X.  Here are
some good recommendations for books.  Let me know if I can be of
any further assistance

>Astrologer: You cannot determine whether astrology does X. 
^^^^^^^^^^^
(None that I personally know of)

>Me: But you claim to have determined that astrology does X.

>Astrologer:  Boy, are you ever close-minded.  Go somewhere else. &%*^%!@#!
^^^^^^^^^^^
(Certainly not my opinion.)


>>What a shame.  I hope you can break down some of those walls.  There's so much
>>more to experience out there.  How boring to build such a small castle.

>Sorry Mark, the castles and walls, and whatever are part of the fertile
>imagination in _your_ mind, not in mine.

>I am amazed at the frequency with which this self-evidently false criticism is
>raised: if I were only interested in the world of rationality and "shut out
>everything else", would I read this newsgroup and endure the slings and arrows
>here merely for the sake of the occasional (about once per month and getting
>less frequent, I'm afraid) interesting discussion (i.e. without labelling and
>name-calling)?

>So please, everyone: keep the discussion on astrology, and *demonstrate* your
>open-mindedness instead of proclaiming it in the midst of spitting venom at
>someone because they disagree with you.


>Dave


Newsgroups: alt.astrology