From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: another case study in hatefulness by the "open-minded"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.225136.13558@u.washington.edu>, mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson) writes...
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>Subject: Re: another case study in hatefulness by the "open-minded"
>References: <BvGF0D.2y2@exnet.co.uk> <26508@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Oct2.192952.8979@u.washington.edu> <6360@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <1992Oct6.081739.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> <6OCT199216105475@vxcrna.cern.ch>
> 
>casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (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]

>>[Roy] I'm afraid you and your intolerance (provoking rage) at anyone who
>>questions your beliefs are more deserving of the fundie label.
> 
>******************************************************************************
>Dave:
> 
>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. 

Wrong.  I don't feel I have a duty.  I'm just here for fun and enlightenment.

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

Clearly it is an astrology newsgroup.  You seem to think that includes only
those who are advocates of astrology.  There I disagree.  For instance, a
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).

>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? 

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.

>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.

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.

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

In general it is not my beliefs that I worry about.

>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.

The full moon case is illustrative.  I pointed out, and offered supporting
evidence, that there is no increase in crime during periods of full moon, when
others stated their own conviction (not supported by any other evidence) that
there is.  I did not call anyone names when some continued to maintain their
original claim, again without either refuting the evidence I cited, or
providing evidence of their own.  If they want to believe the full moon causes
crime in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, they are as welcome as if
they want to believe the Earth is flat.  But when I hear someone say the Earth
is flat, I will not refrain from telling them that they are probably mistaken
merely out of fear to insult some deeply held belief. 

The problem is the hypersensitivity of some people to seeing what they believe
in questioned.  As we have recently seen, they respond with irrational vitriol.
Is this my fault or does it indicate a problem of theirs?  The marketplace of
ideas is open to everyone.  If you don't like what I'm selling, fine, don't
buy.  If your self-image rests on the illusion that no one could possibly
disagree with you, then you are headed for a lot bigger trouble than you'll
ever run into on the net. 

Now, contrast the logical and factual points I raise against astrology (which
as far as I'm concerned anyone is free to disagree with without earning a
scurrilous and flatulent ad hominem attack in return from me) with the
infantile personal abuse that seems to flow unceasing from certain quarters.
Whether you agree with me or not, I am at least trying to raise the level of
the discussion instead of the volume of the discussion.

As I have said before, anyone who is uninterested is free to ignore what I
write.  alt.astrology averages less than 10 messages a day, and about half
of these are asking for a copy of astrolog or to have their chart done.
Complaining about bandwidth is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

[inaccurate Freudian psycho-analysis omitted]

>If there's one thing that I've learned in life -- you can't force people
>into believing something if they don't want to no matter how much
>scientific evidence you propose to back up your argument.  Believe it or
>not, there are alot of other people who think they are "right" in their
>beliefs as strongly as you feel they are "wrong".  You'll just have to
>accept that.

I assure you I am amply convinced of what you say.  Again, I challenge you to
find one intolerant word in what I post (OK, I am intolerant of being flamed).
Please do not confuse disagreeing with the majority opinion with intolerance.

[more relatively presumptuous psycho-analysis omitted]

>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.

Astrologer: You cannot determine whether astrology does X.

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

Astrologer:  Boy, are you ever close-minded.  Go somewhere else. &%*^%!@#!

>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