From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology (skeptical of skeptics)
Organization: The Great Beast 666
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:08:24 GMT

Flamish and hostile - so beware and be advised.

crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford) writes "retort" to Young-Kyu Yoo

Hmm. Crawdad hasn't mailed the set of 10 dates, including his true
birth data; but he hasn't declined the offer, or said why. Maybe he's
busy?

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,

Crawford
Hollombe (he's been quiet)
Wiegand
Kettenring

Please forgive any misspellings.
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
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.
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
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
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.

I have the right to express my opinion "let the ignorant desist" in the same
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
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,
is highly nonlinear, is not very reproducible, yet it works just fine.

So don't expend any energy on your side of the "debate"; you aren't "debating";
you're just detracting. So who needs it.

I'm going to continue, because various people here wish to consume it.
Moreover, numbers of people are at least curious. Tell you what let's do.
The sit-back do-nothing attack-and-laugh skeptic please post under the
thread "I'm skeptical because I feel like it, I don't have to account for it"
so I can put that thread in my killfile. (this is symbolic; I don't use
killfiles.) This allows me to ignore hypocrites while I'm doing something
I feel is productive. Are we agreed? If you really mean to determine whther
astrology works, then Get Off Your Butt, read the McPherson post, and read
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
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
a chart reading for him which he attacked as false in almost all particulars -
and I didn't think Xavier's style was very good - e.g. too rigid, even if
correct "by the book" - so I wasn't surprised he could make a poor reading.
But Dave, for days now, has yet to respond *whatever to me, or Stacey, or to
the group at all, or to me or Stacey in private mail - while *yet* going on
in the group about why astrology is all wrong. Want to guess why?
We read him to himself, and we blew away his little hermetic, skeptic, left-
brained world, and he can't bring himself to acknowledge this. At least that's
what I say, until I hear from Dave - I've said so in the net, as a challenge.
Hey Dave - were we right or wrong? No Answer. Ooooooooo - not very nice
behavior.

Hey skeptics - if astrology is full of shit - then here's your challenge:
YOU post your ACCURATE birth information HERE and take your chances TOO.

Why Gee, because if it doesn't work - it doesn't work, right? You've got
Nothing to Lose.

So that's precise time of birth (birth certificate or reliable source),
date of birth with an abbreviation for the month e.g. Jun, since 5/6/62
is ambiguous (I prefer European order and so do some others),
place of birth (name of place), gender, and for purposes of choice of
pronoun in describing a mate, gender preference - if this is omitted,
I'll assume they're your gender opposite.

The offer to Crawdad re: 10 charts is cancelled. Let him take his empirical
chances with the method I do in fact use.

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
who're using their minds in ways they've found useful - so you Put Up
or Shut Up too. Or I'll label you hypocrites as often as you ridicule me
and others who engage in "new age sewage", the occult, and related things.
I've seen things there to work. You haven't lifted a finger except to confute,
and know little to nothing about what you attack. I call that ignorance, yes.

-ec "one pissed dude" sd