From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology (skeptical of skeptics)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:52:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.090824.10373@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
[....]
>
>Turns out, that the L.McPherson post about RESEARCH demonstrating correlations
>has not been answered by our fine skeptics - who are they? As I recall,

If you mean "Elle" McPherson, she'll be very busy the next few days
anyway, so don't worry about it.

>Please forgive any misspellings.

See above.  Don't worry about it.

>Now, I know it's a lot of work to read that post, and then *maybe* to look
>into any one of the *many* citations listed there - but for the people who
>will be flaming me below (my below, anyway) for a "4b" failure to respond

It didn't look that bad.  Maybe you're overreacting.  Besides, you didn't
expect astrology to be that popular, did you?  It seemed you'd been
given a nice opportunity to turn some skeptics around.  Go crazy!

>to them - my, not only do *I* have to prove astrology *does* work - but
>they don't have to do *anything*. That's a convenient division of labor.

Yeah, that's right.  When you have an audience to win over, you don't go
to them and say, "Prove you don't believe me!"  This isn't really a debate,
but an opportunity to sway some people who don't currently care all that
much what you say.  It may be irrational, but it's the nature of the
role of the "rebel".  

>Might I suggest, if they aren't willing to do their end of the work involved -
>they politely withdraw? You see, because if they really don't care very much

Personally, why would I even care about sending you lots of anecdotal
evidence about horoscopes and how they meant nothing?  Why would you care?

>about it one way or the other -- I *do*, because I'm being asked to account
>for why I engage in things they don't understand. It's alright to be patient
>to try to explain, but not very fun if the responses are ignored - that is,
>as a social exchange, I perceive abuse here, and I don't like it. I do
>astrology because I believe it, because I have seen it to work for me, in

This is very mild abuse, if that's what it is.  Have you been receiving
bad e-mail?  I agree that would be annoying, but you are the lecturer/
teacher here.  You are the salesman/barker/pitchman/defender/sponsor.
If you don't like that role, dump it and give up.  But actually, lots of
people on this group seem to enjoy your posts, so why not take the bull
by the horns, so to speak?

>certain specific, limited ways. I've made no study to be able to support it
>from an empirical point of view, as L.McPherson has done. And while the
>readings are slowly going on, people are still heaping abuse.
>

F**k 'em.

>way you have the right to flame me around the thing at all. You don't have to
>desist. But I don't *have* to prove anything for you, either. I'm going to
>be doing some extensive work here, to demonstrate Astrology in action, so

It is a volunteer position, after all.

>that people will see what it is Really All About. There is a very competant
>person I will invite to do followup readings of charts I read here - she is
>very perceptive and does good readings. We're doing this as a public service.
>We enjoy this. So here's our positive energy, being shared with you.
>
>What kind of people are you, to sit back and carp at it. "4b" - answer the
>skeptic: You need to know something about this, to make an assessment.
>That happens to be true - astrology is a right-brain activity for *ME*;
>it hasn't good access to my verbal skills. It uses pictures and symbols,
[....]
>one article cited. Report your observations here. Otherwise, while I am
>busting my buns at least partly in your behalf, the least you can do is

I would say that their openness to this is at least partly due to your
approach.  I'd also say that if it were not due to this approach, you
wouldn't have many supporters on ROM.

>show some respect for the fact that I care to expend the energy and will
>take my time and risk to fail here, in doing this.
>
>Got news for you: Dave Casper has seen my analysis, if he cared to read it,
>and he saw Stacey's (my guest from alt.astrology). A certain Xavier had done

Lighten up, Eric.  You can't be so naive to think that anything worth
thinking about at all isn't going to arouse its share of negativity.

[....]
>As far as Put Up or Shut Up is concerned, that works both ways.
>I'm putting up. This isn't a forum to be children and abuse people

Well, it's not supposed to be, but I agree wholeheartedly with you here.

>-ec "one pissed dude" sd

Apparently.  But your best weapon is to do the charts, supply the
data, let the public decide.  Debates after the presentation will
be much more satisfying, I'll bet.  And it could be worse.  What if the
other fellow you've discussed chose to dump endless, repetitive
non-sequiturs about astrology to ROM?  The only thing worse than
being made angry is being bored out of your skull by hitting "n"
over and over and over and over and over........

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa