From: rigking@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (GAVIN KING)
Subject: Re: StarSigns??
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:56:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.205538.15731@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> chapin@cbnewsc.cb.att.com ( Tom Chapin ) writes:
>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

How interesting. Nothing I can fault there, except the statement that 
astrology makes no predictions. The prediction astrologers make is that all 
people born under a particular star sign in the future will have a similar 
personality to that which they claim has been exhibited by those people born 
under that star sign in the past.