From: eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun)
Subject: Re: Zodiac Constellations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:26:32 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>>kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano) writes:
: 
: 	I'm not at odds with everybody else, on the contrary, less people
: believe in astrology than disbelieve in it.<<<


For a rural islander you're very presumptive as a skeptic. What? no data to substantiate numbers of who believes or who does not? Perhaps in Aus. there may be no one, or very few that openly admit to belief in Astrology but what of the rest of the world? Stating that which you have concluded upon above is as much 
"bunk" as you disclaim astrologers and those that may believe to be misinformed.

: > : I see is a 2000 year old superstition with no evidence for its validity
: > : whatsoever!<<
: > 

What? have you not noticed the reaction of people on a full moon? Go to an
emergency room of your local hospital and ask. You'll find a strange reaction on the human race during that time. A coincidence is once but not on a regular 
basis. As this there are many other "common" and "simple" observations that 
>are< part of astromantical, or astrological observations but perhaps you're
above doing your own research and hide behind that surreptitious cloak of
the net to "fatiously" challenge anothers of something you know nothing of.


>>: 	Whether it is 6000 or 2000 years old makes little difference to
: me. It is still ancient and therefore unlikely to be correct. I'm sure
: some form of heavenly superstition has been present ever since man first
: walked upright and looked at the sky, trying to make sense of what they
: saw there.<<

For a skeptic you sure make rather broad sweeping statements that challenge
the most worthy of historian! You have very little awareness in your islander
naivete of the values or study of anything past. This seems to betray a
certain bigotry or challenge of authority and shames your skeptecism to
a mere infantile, obdurate position to which there is no resolve that can
reason with it, as you are already decided that you cannot accept what you
in disclaming question.

To take you seriously, therefore, is to fall victim to dissapointment,
luckily, I did not expect anything less from you, so leading you on only
seems to have made more of an >ass< of you than that which you expected to make
us that communicate on this thread.

I suppose we can be understanding of your boredom, for one look at aus.religion
betrays the lack of imagination or interest that might have driven you to
"play" on another thread.



>>>: > : doing is offering the poor (and I use the term loosely, most are quite
: > : rich) astrologer a chance to prove his/her claims.<<<


Again, another pontificating sweeping statement that has no foundation of
truth and betrays an envious tone on your behalf. 
Who do you think you are?? How dare you condescend when you haven't got a pot topiss on, with you lame brain arguments?



>>: As for travel, I hope to, as soon as I can
: raise the cash :-).<<


You could take up your own challenge. Who Knows? You might be able to win 
the $10,000.00 yourself! Think of it! Paris in the spring. Rome, and the
Mediterranian!.......Cannes at moonlight.....



>>: 	What has my attitude got to do with the date Australia was
: colonized?<<

This was meant as a pun. Read the history of Australian colonization by the 
British. You might answer that yourself.


>>: > >>I don't claim astrology works, so I can't take up the challenge!
: > : I'd be the first to do so if I thought it did! I could use $10000!!<<
: 	You don't seem to understand, you have the claim, it's up to you
: to prove it. I don't claim anything. If I did claim to have a working
: paranormal technique (eg psychics, water divining etc.) I'd take up the
: challenge for sure, but I don't, you do, therefore it's up to you to take
: up the challenge if you want the money.
: 


Wrong! It was you who unsolicited posted. It was you who self appointedly chose
to challenge the art of Astrology. So it is you to whom the burden falls to
prove or disprove it. But not at our expense.

No one on this thread boasted that astrology was unquestionable. You >chose<
to disclaim it however. You can bleat all you want but all your admonishions
have no basis of foundadion any more than >you< claim astrologers have.
Yet Astrologers have an ancient historical record of belief that you lack.
Since the dawning of reason, it is a human trait to question, even that which is obvious. But it is usually the burden of the disclaimer to substantiate their
point. Not those whom she/he would accuse.

Usually that disclaimer betrays a deep rooted interest in that which he/she
questions. It is >their< problem. But either youth, or inexperience supports
an insecurity that the disclaimer shoves on the shoulders of their victim.
For anyone to take you seriously, however, it is *you* who has to prove
their credibility otherwise you are no more than a ridiculous begruding demon
challenging the omnisciense of God as in Prologue of the book of Faust by Gothe.



>>>>>>>:I think I have allowed room for other people's opinions. I
: certainly know a lot more about astrology than I did when I first posted
: that message, but you haven't changed my opinion that it's bunk...
: 
: Glenn Capuano<<<<


Hardly. On both counts. As for your opinion....you had already decided that
long before you opened any argument here. Though many of the colleagues here
have humored you it is obvious how shallow you present yourself.
In humble opinion, I must confess that you really haven't changed ours
either, and that your amusing assidulous romp was as much >bunk< as your
conclusions of us or Astrology.

eshin-Fun

: 
Newsgroups: alt.astrology