From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: another case study in denial by the willfully self-unaware
Organization: The Great Beast 666
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:38:41 GMT

>mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson) writes...
>>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. 

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

Whose fun, Dave? Your personal fun, or the fun of the dozens of people who
post here? It's an eerie, eerie question - it doesn't have a clear answer.

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

Dave:
>Clearly it is an astrology newsgroup.  You seem to think that includes only
>those who are advocates of astrology.  There I disagree.

As I said elsewhere: "I don't invite myself to Andrea Dworkin's house, to
abuse her for her opinions." - this is an occult issue, Dave. You are not
going to convince people here to abandon their belief in astrology; all you
are doing is (attempting to) vaunt your own ego. Nothing wrong with that -
but you won't admit that. A bunch of Nuns are talking about some sacrament.
You sit down and demand their attention as an equal member of the group,
opening with the statement "Well, since God sucks and you're stupid . . ." -
get the drift? Why not go where your statement gets applause? No, seriously,
why are you coming here for *negative attention* and *fights*? I've analyzed
this is in your nature - but you know, if they can't break the horse, they
shoot it. What do you really want?

Dave:
>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.

Dave, I just got out of rec.nude, trying to argue that sexuality should be
freed and that since nudity == sex (at least to the subconscious) it's silly
to deny this to the public, as a sap to get yet one more little nude beach
here or there, when maybe *I'd* like to walk into my office any day of the
week in my birthday suit - without raising eyebrows. They (about 1/2) hated
my guts. Rather than say "since we're suppressed, we don't want to talk about
it", they said "this discussion has nothing to do with nudity." -
now, I've burned myself up in two newsgroups so far - soc.bi and rec.nude -
by doing exactly what you're doing here. I know the death-bell tolls when
I start seeing threads titled "ECSD and soc.bi", "ECSD and Re: Sexuality",
etc. -- true, I got nice posts - privately. But that wasn't reflected in the
net. Since this has happened twice, I've determined that maybe there is a
dominant social theme in a newsgroup, where it's easier to go along, than
burn the place up. You get a bad rep, and private hate mail too. If you
*really* want people to listen to you, you have to be nice and make a lot of
apologies you don't really believe - c.f. Dale Carnegie. Soft-pedal it.
And that *ain't in your style*, Dude.

Mark Carlson:
>>Maybe you could sit down with yourself for a moment and ask yourself why you
>>feel a need to slam other people's beliefs.

Dave:
>I am not slamming anyone's beliefs, per se.

"astrology == bullshit" fairly easily translates to "the professor of a
bullshit belief has rocks in their head" - ask most people here if they
don't feel the *suggestion* of a personal attack, even if they can roll it
off.

Dave:
>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 haven't been paying much attention - but I bet I can call you on this too:
HAVE you agreed with people here, when what they've said was fair or true?
Go to rec.org.mensa, there was a post by L. McPherson, very long, describing
RESEARCH finding correlations between astronomical events, and human traits
and physical phenomena - complete with nice annotated citations, Many of them.
Hell, I'll email you a copy, if you like. Real Physical Data, Mr. Virgo.

Dave:
>Complaining about bandwidth is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

We all like to create pithy quotes.
Don't you have anything better to do? Like smash particles and measure the
pretty spirals? Or get laid? (I have an excuse - Ve square Sa - so no
harrassment, please.) After all, Dave, it takes your time - see where you
are investing your emotional energy.

Hey - I'm lying, alright? I went at usenet like a banshee for two weeks
straight, and I learned a fuck of a lot about people and about myself.
Maybe that's what you're doing here too. But after a while - go get flamed
somewhere else - new faces, maybe more of a challenge. Go to rec.org.mensa,
and you & I can have it out regularly - fine. Leave these people alone - for
a damned while at least. Eh?

Dave:
>find one intolerant word in what I post (OK, I am intolerant of being flamed).
> ... (about two lines later:)
>[more relatively presumptuous psycho-analysis omitted]
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Case closed.

Dave:
>Me: I would like to determine for myself whether astrology does X.
>Astrologer: You cannot determine whether astrology does X.

Hey - what fatuous bullshit! Fuck you! Not only will I copy Watters for you
tomorrow - but I'll send you at my own expense, an introductory book on the
shit. Jesus A. Christ! Yessir! And even YOU, Dave, earth-mole that you are,
can soon be a high-flight assstrologer.

Maybe some honesty: the best you can do in the above is to quote them as:
"Astrologer: I cannot prove to you that astrology does X."

Dave:
>Me: But you claim to have determined that astrology does X.
>Astrologer:  Boy, are you ever close-minded.  Go somewhere else. &%*^%!@#!

Again, sweety-pie: your actual M.O. is to say: "you have to prove to me that
astrology does X, by sucking Mt. Rushmore through a straw." - of COURSE the
astrologer tell you to take a leap.

Dave:
>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)?

Your subconscious mind seems to have a better handle on why you're here than
you do. I'd suggest you start listening for the sound of her voice . . .

Dave:
>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.

NOOOOO Dave. If you stick your nose into a hut full of aborigines - all that
will happen is they'll keep looking at *you*. Hey - we have your chart -
you're *dead meat*.

I love you Dave, truly I do. And I sooooo love to flame.
Take it to rec.org.mensa, where I'll eat you for breakfast.

-ec "Venus/Pisces/12 opposite Jupiter=Pluto/Leo/6 squared Mars=Saturn/Sag/9" sd