HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kehoe@netcom.com (Thomas David Kehoe)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: void of course moon
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:37:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

>As I understand things, any course of action that is started on a void of course
>moon has a habit of not coming to fruition, ie "nothing happens". This is taken
>from the little I currently know about horary practice.
>
>When a course of action is undertaken by one or more people, can a major aspect
>from the transiting moon to one one or other persons chart be taken into account?
>If so does it represent the possibility existing for that person, but nothing

I've seen the "personal" VOC printouts, with last transit to
your natal chart.  I haven't decided whether these are better
than "mundane" VOC charts.  Why don't you write to Al H. Morrison
and ask him?  He's the "father" of VOC watching (Kepler would
be the grandfather...).

He's at Box 75, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY  10113-0075.
If you include an SASE, a $ or two, and your time zone he'll
send a year's VOC ephemeris, with a 3-page explanation.

I don't find that "nothing happens."  If you start a 
project to learn something, seek insights you've missed
in the past, or aesthetically enjoy things, you should
be successful during a VOC.

If you try to get ahead, show how smart you are, make
money, or make a major decision during a VOC, your goals
will not be acheived.  You will be offered a lesson to
learn.  Whether you choose to learn it is up to you.

You can approach the same event from either frame
of mind.  Let's say you have a presentation to some
important people, and the Moon is VOC.  If you walk
in with the attitude, "I'm incredibly smart, and they'll
immeadiately think so too.  I'll present my proposal,
and they'll agree with me completely and give me the
$1,000,000 I'm asking them for.  If they're stupid
and have some silly objections, I'll forcefully argue
my case until they agree.  I won't take no for an answer."

Or you could come in with, "The Moon's VOC, so I'm sure
I'll fail.  They'll probably point out something
I've missed.  I'll listen keenly to what they say.
Afterwards, I'll take a walk in the park and
ponder everything I learn today.  Maybe I'll
see what I've done wrong, and this will help
me be successful in the future."
-- 
"Why my thoughts are my own, when they are in, but when they are out
they are another's." - Susannah Martin, hanged for witchcraft, 1692.
Thomas David Kehoe          kehoe@netcom.com         (408) 354-5926
Xref: sparky alt.astrology:2852 sci.misc:2064 misc.misc:4465
From: sibley@cis.ohio-state.edu (james h sibley)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Useless tidbit of information needed..
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:56:27 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: skink.cis.ohio-state.edu
Summary: Do you know the 12 Birthstones?
Keywords: birthstones


   First I apologize if this message doesn't belong in any of these groups,
but I could not find a more suitable one.

   Now, does anyone know the twelve birthstones?  Yes, it's useless and if I
had an encyclopedia handy I'd look it up myself.  But, I don't so if you know
them please enlighten me.  Respond via E-mail please.  Thanks..




-- 
      James H. McG. Sibley                        Nous Sommes Du Soleil
      In search of the ultimate Stromboli.          We Are Of The Sun
      jsibley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu                We Can See
      Amiga: What computers were meant to be.             -YES-
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: rsparrow@cs.umr.edu (Richard Sparrow)
Subject: Re: Ansi in Astrolog 2.40
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:14:30 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Keywords: Astrolog

In article <1993Jan25.044156.11128@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tgoyett@nyx.cs.du.edu (Tom Goyett) writes:
>I've just downloaded the newsversion of astrolog and I think that its a
>wonderful program.  One of the main enhancements of this program was the
>addition of ANSI to the screen displays.  But when i use the -k switch
>with the -w switch to see a chart on the screen the planets names or
>glyphs do not show up.  Has anyone else had that problem?

I suspect that the program is displaying the planets names as black on
a black field. Fun combination but not terminal. If this is the case,
it should be easily correctable. Unfortunately, I cannot recompile the
code, or else I would have. Look in the routine initcolors() in driver.c.

Richard Sparrow
Sun=23Aqu09, Asc=11Sag13, Moon=22Sco51
From: agray@axion.bt.co.uk (Andy Gray)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: void of course moon
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:38:59 GMT
Organization: BT Laboratories

As I understand things, any course of action that is started on a void of course
moon has a habit of not coming to fruition, ie "nothing happens". This is taken
from the little I currently know about horary practice.

The definition of a void of course moon is that period between the time the moon
makes its last major aspect (con, opp, trine, square, sextile) to a planet in the
current sky, until the time it moves into the next sign.

When a course of action is undertaken by one or more people, can a major aspect
from the transiting moon to one one or other persons chart be taken into account?
If so does it represent the possibility existing for that person, but nothing
happens for the other person, or is this just a red herring (fanciful thought).

I'd appreciate comment, either here, or in my mailbox

Thanks, as always

Andy Gray
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: pisces@cs.mcgill.ca (L. M. P. McPherson)
Subject: Re: "The Case for Astrology"
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:07:19 GMT


In article <1993Jan26.015620.3146@udel.edu> hughes@gloin.cis.udel.edu (John Hughes) writes:
>In article <C1BIJ9.8oJ@cs.mcgill.ca> pisces@cs.mcgill.ca (L. M. P. McPherson) writes:
>>
>>Has anyone read John Anthony West's "The Case for Astrology" 
>>(first published in 1991)? 
>
>Hmm, I thought this book (or at least one with an identical title) came out in
>the early eighties. I was in fact impressed with most of it then; I felt he was
>rather more eloquent and believable than some others who defend the art with
>more of a fervent religiousness.
>
>[...description of CSIOP's unpleasantness...]
>
>This part sounds new. The book you saw must be a new edition. I ought to have
>a look at it...

Actually, it is more than a new edition; it is a complete re-write by
one of the authors of the original. I remember being unimpressed
with the original, which seemed a bit hysterical. Having read a bit
more of the new version, I am again unimpressed with some of the
argument, but most of his arguments strike me as valid. The problem
with books *defending* astrology is that few of the really great
minds would undertake such an effort for fear of losing their
careers (since most of them are in some academic field). West is
not among the world's deepest thinkers, but neither is he a fool.
At the very least he is successful, I feel, in revealing the abject
religious fervour of the unschooled opponents of astrology
(which is not to say that he has no fervour of his own; he
clearly does; but his book is no less biased than books written
by "debunkers"). And he does lay out much of the evidence for
astrology, although his discussions of studies other than those
of the Gauquelins are too brief for my taste. One of the "skeptics"
who holds the view that the work of the Gauquelins is the only
positive evidence for a correspondence between celestial and
mundane events might miss the point that other evidence exists
(because it is discussed so briefly).

And the beat goes on...


Maggie

Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: Gary_Coleman@mindlink.bc.ca (Gary Coleman)
Subject: Re: my birthday
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:43:40 GMT

> Julia E. Hawley writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <93024.125806JH8414A@auvm.american.edu>
> Posted: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:58:0
>
> Org.  : The American University - University Computing Center
>
> today is my birthday (1/24/65) so I thought I would look beyond today's
> paper
> for info.  Anyone know anything special about people born on this date?  I
> was
> born at approx. 10:40am, if that matters.
>
> THANKS

Happy Solar return!  You have managed to fill in two of the three w's Who and
when,   how about where?  :)  (the who is just for the Data base.  ;)

<=  I had so little earth in my chart I had to take up a profession that was
solid...concrete.  :)  =>
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Ophiuchi
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:57:50 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <1993Jan21.144409.1018@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu>, jfeldhouse@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu (Jim Feldhouse) writes:
>Why isn't Ophiuchi included among the signs of the zodiac?
>The ecliptic goes right thru it.
>Why isn't it included?  Anyone know?
>
>Thanks
>Born under Ophiuchi, not Scorpio
>Jim

(This is the second time I'm answering this question.)

That's not a sign, it's a constellation.  Astrologers and astronomers use
different conventions nowadays: astronomers use the 88 constellations, 13 of
which are run through by the zodiac: Ophiuchus (the one you mentioned), and
the twelve ones that bear the same names that astrologers use for their 12
signs.  The astronomers' choice of *constellations* is arbitrary, the number
as well as names and exact borders, while astrology implies that number, names,
and borders of *zodiacal signs* are important.

The *signs* are defined by dividing the zodiac into twelve equal parts, starting
with Aries at the spring equinox.  The zodiacal *constellations* don't occupy
equal angles: Scorpio only has a small piece of ecliptic, while Leo has a lot
of it (if I remember correctly).  Furthermore, signs are shifted with respect
to constellations: the spring equinox doesn't lie between the constellations
of Pisces and Aries (as it does with signs) but in Pisces, close to the border
to Aquarius.

Therefore there is no reason to use Ophiuchus for astrology.  Astronomers'
random patterns are not relevant.  Astronomers will be the first to admit
that.

PS. Nobody answered, so I did.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Philosophy is the art of drawing conclusions from definitions that have been
chosen so that one can draw the conclusions one would like to get.
It immediately follows that philosophy is silly.
From: kap@eng.cam.ac.uk (Kevin A. Price)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Astrolog, where?
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:56:27 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

Where can I download the new version of AstroLog?

Cheers


                    @@  @@
                   @@  @@
                   @@ @@
                  @@ @@    @@@@@@   @@    @@
                  @@@@    @@    @@  @@   @@
                 @@ @@   @@@@@@@     @@ @@
                 @@  @@  @@          @@@
                @@   @@   @@@@@@     @@     @
      
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|   Kevin     o o     kap@eng.cam.ac.uk     o o    This space reserved      |
|   Price     \_/     UK  (0223) 332764     \_/      for future use.        |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      /temp/earth is 96% full, please remove any excess terrafiles         |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: lmcdougal@coglab.uo.edu (Lynn McDougal)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Pluto/Venus transits
Followup-To: alt.astrology
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:43:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for Cognitive and Decision Sciences
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-psych-coglab-17.uoregon.edu

I would be interested in some feedback re tr. Pluto/natal Venus transits
(esp. Pluto con. Venus).  I have had one in 1990 when Pluto conjuncted my
natal Venus at 15 degrees Cancer (in my sixth house).  It was a nine month
long cycle.  I became pregnant (no suprise as Venus is in trine with
Jupiter in Scorpio (in my 10th house), and is conj. Mars in Cancer), and I
made a decision to give the baby up for adoption thru an open adoption. 
This decision was very unusual as I am extremely pro-choice, however, I am
also the product of a closed adoption in 1959.  Certainly it now feels like
there was closure of a cycle in my collective (unknown) past.  The transit
ended almost 9 months to the day that I gave birth to my daughter.  I have
a friend who will experience a similar transit in Jan. of 1994 when tr.
Pluto will conj. her natal Venus at 27 degrees Scorpio (in her third
house).  Her Venus trines her moon at 27 degrees Cancer (in her 10th
house)..  In talking this weekend we wondered what thoughts occur about
this type of transit (as well as the other Pluto/Venus transits), and
whether or not anyone else had a tale they might wish to share in the hopes
of shedding some light on the shadow.
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: roy@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Re: bullshit
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:57:56 GMT

> study of astrology as worthwhile and rewarding. Of course, to do so would 
> allow astrology to be subjected to the rigour of scientific enquiry, 
> possibly leading to its falsification, so I cannot see too many doing this. 
> To those who lead their lives on the basis of the advice of astrologers, I 
> offer the following advice: read Karl Popper on the philosophy of science. 
> Astrological predictions are framed in such language as to make them 
> unfalsifiable, thus rendering astrology as a theory worthless.

Astrlogers have known Popper for a long long time! And by the way, Popper is
outdated (except for the occultists of logical empricism--"old dogs never 
die"), his criticism of historicism, Marxism and psychoanalysis is no longer
good philosophy of science/history/social thought but a chapter in the history
of the philosophy of science. The ability to falsify a theory does not
necessarily makes that theory scientific. It is rather the paradigm within
which "normal" science operates that makes the theory scientific. 
There was sometime ago an interesting discussion in this list concerning 
these matters. Perhaps you can read it in the ftp file. If not read the works
of Thomas Kuhn and the most recent philosophy of science (caos theory, etc).

Regards, Roy

Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: richardg@ssd.intel.com (Richard Griffiths)
Subject: Re: charts
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Divison, Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:30:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.194457.24141@wam.umd.edu>, yohan@wam.umd.edu (Deore) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Would anyone be interested in doing a very comprehensive chart for me?
|> Please send me e-mail and I will discuss all of the arrangements.
|> 
A.I.T. does beautiful color natal charts with approx. 25 pages of
interpretation that's written for the layman.  The cost is $12.  Send them
you name, date, time, and place of birth along with a check to:

A.I.T.
P.O. Box 6595
Beaverton, OR 97007
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: fi32@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Validity of Astrology/Psychic Powers
Organization: University of North Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:36:47 GMT

> ...  If anyone can show proof they have any paranormal powers,
> the magician James Randi has had an outstanding many thousand-dollar
> reward for about 20 years, just waiting for you to come and claim it.

The problem with Mr. Randi's wager is that it is very difficult to prove you
did somethink with personal/psychic power. His approach has always been to
duplicate an effect with some artificial means, and then to say that that
"proves" the psychic must have done it that way. This is not a valid approach. 

Astrologers for centuries have documented the synchronicity of events with
heavenly motions. Just because the majority of people choose to put it all down
to "just a coincidence" does not invalidate our point.

Phillip


Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: yohan@wam.umd.edu (Deore)
Subject: charts
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:43:29 GMT



Would anyone be interested in doing a very comprehensive chart for me?
Please send me e-mail and I will discuss all of the arrangements.




Thank you.
yohan@wam.umd.edu

Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: hughes@gloin.cis.udel.edu (John Hughes)
Subject: Re: question from beginner
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:08:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.151246.7358@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> tjc@hrcce.att.com writes:
>>he tells you to use a birth time of 6am if you do not know the exact 
>>time of birth.  he states that this will provide a solar natal chart
>>which is still pretty accurate.  why 6am? and how accurate is this chart?
>
>A solar chart is one with the sun on the ascendent, which is where
>the sun will be at (roughly) 6am.  (And it will be at the midheaven
>at noon and the immum coeli at midnight.)

To clarify a little:

"Sunrise" is a local phenomenon which does depend on all of time, season,
lattitude, and longitude. The sun is always on the ascendant at sunrise; the
ascendant is defined as the point where the ecliptic (the apparent path of
the sun) crosses the horizon. 

The error lies in assuming that the sun always rises at 6:00 am. This only 
happens on the morning of the Spring Equinox, at logical time zones (multiples 
of 15 degrees longitude, different from standard time zones which snake all 
around to miss cities and sometimes whole states) basically like Mr. Chapin 
describes. Everyone has experience, however, of how the sunrise hour changes 
throughout the year; earlier in the summer than in the winter. To cast a true 
solar chart, which along with noon charts some astrologers do admit as 
acceptable in the absence of a known birth time, requires knowing the exact 
time of sunrise at the birthplace on the day in question, which most printed 
reference texts don't bother to include. Programs like astrolog will calculate
this, however.

Probably more preferable to both, however, is chart rectification-- an
oppressive, hideous, but ultimately rewarding task.


John
hughes@cis.udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: lara@yorgi.csd.sgi.com (Lara Allen)
Subject: Llewellyn Press BooBoo
Organization: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems,  Mountain View CA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:25:36 GMT

Greetings!

I've been trying to practice interpretations using
daily transits.  So I purchased the Llewellyn Press's
1993 Daily Planetary Guide.  Well, their calendar for
Jan 1993 at the bottom of the pages was wrong.  I was 
curious if their transits were correct.

Also, I bought the 1993 Sun Sign Book.  They listed this
as the year of the Snake when it's really going to
be the Year of the Rooster/Chicken.

1) Does anyone have a number for them?  I can't seem to
find one anywhere (just addresses)

2) What will the Year of the Rooster bring?  The Year of
the Monkey was very very very intense for me.  Most of
my friends broke off their long term relationships.
People who were 'cured' from cancer had relapses.  It
was definitely Somebody's way of realigning my sense
of reality :-)

3) The Llewellyn Press lists an aspect called the Quincunx.
My other books don't list this.  Is there a good book out
for interpreting daily aspects/transits?

4) does the interpretation get easier with time :-)

Take care and happy new year.
Enjoy the Sun in Aquarius as well as Mercury.
Lara
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  /\ /\       |   lara@sgi.sgi.com   (yorgi's home)  (415) 390-1609
   . .        |--------------------------------------------------------------
  =   =       |Silicon Graphics Customer Support Division 
    v         |DoD# 0391   '86 454LTD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope is the feeling you have that the feeling you have isn't permanent. J. Kerr
--


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  /\ /\       |   lara@sgi.sgi.com   (yorgi's home)  (415) 390-1609
   . .        |--------------------------------------------------------------
  =   =       |Silicon Graphics Customer Support Division 
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin )
Subject: Re: StarSigns??
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:55:38 GMT

GAVIN KING writes:
>A question for all you astrologers: do you think that the predictive power 
                    ^^^
It would appear that you have had little contact with astrologers.
A few notes...  Most astrologers these days do not use astrology for
its "predictive power," but as a device to psychological classification.
Only a few are into technical analysis of the stock market or timing
earthquakes.

>of astrology has been harmed by the fact that, due to the precession of the 
>Earth about its axis, the Sun is no longer positioned in the constellation 
>which is assigned to a person when they are born, on their date of birth. (a 
>bit of background for non-astrologers: in ancient times a person's star sign 
>was chosen on the basis of the constellation in which the Sun was positioned 
>at a person's birth. Since then, precession has altered the date at which 
>the Sun moves into each constellation, 

Astrologers--just about all of them, even the utmost novices--have
been well aware of the precession of the equinoxes since before
scientists believe themselves to have existed.  Ever hear the phrase
"the Age of Aquarius"?  Hardly invented by a scientist, eh?

Scientists--evidently believing that no knowledge can be valuable
if it is not contemporary--are abysmal when it comes to historical
research.  So they never bothered to notice that the "signs" are
and always have been uniform 30-degree segments which were always
based on the equinox and merely named for convenience after the
constellations occupying those regions back when the classification
was being established.  If the scientists were using common sense
rather then demonstrating malicious distortion, they would have
noticed that while the signs are always of uniform size, the
constellations are not, further supporting the idea that the signs
are little connected to the constellations except by historical naming.

>but no attempt has been made by 
>astrologers to alter the star signs of people born between the ancient and 
>present dates.

In reality there are some astrologers who feel the signs should be
based on the fixed stars rather than the equinox--they are called,
reasonably enough, "siderealist astrologers."  And Hindu astrologers
have been siderealist as far back as is known.

But most astrologers see little connection between the signs and
fixed stars, preferring to see the greater symbolic correspondence
between the birth and progression of the seasons, and the birth
and progression of life experiences.
-- 
	     tom chapin                tjc@hrcce.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: chi8@quads.uchicago.edu (Eugenia)
Subject: question from beginner
Reply-To: chi8@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:00:08 GMT

hi. i am new to astrology and am trying to learn how to do a simpl
natal chart.  in a book by Hewitt called "Astrology for Beginners" 
he tells you to use a birth time of 6am if you do not know the exact 
time of birth.  he states that this will provide a solar natal chart
which is still pretty accurate.  why 6am? and how accurate is this chart?
thanks for any input.
Newsgroups: alt.astrology