From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:52:35 GMT

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>}crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford) writes:
>}>
>}>Although I must admit, I'm very dismayed
>}>to find that the number of Ms that believe in astrology, crystal
>}>power, and other newage sewage is not zero.
>}
>}Nope. It's at least 1, because I do.
>}I do astrology, and I don't do half bad with it either.
>}Just like I learned to use computers: by trying.

>I'll bet you don't do half good, either.
>
>I once confronted our local M astrologer when a prediction he made (very
>insistently) and claimed all other astrologers agreed with turned out to
>be 180 degrees off from reality.  He denied ever having made such a
>statement, even when confronted with several eye & ear witnesses.
>
>Selective memory can make anything look good.

I'll bet you haven't solved everything to be dealt with in *your* field
either. Just because you don't play the piano like Josef Hofmann doesn't
mean you aren't a good enough piano player.

I know my own record; you don't. I know my own limitations; you don't.
How about *asking*, rather than *telling*, especially as you are [evidently]
trying to speak *for* me?

I can't vouch for your single counterexample, *too bad*.

I deal with it in the way I know best works for *me* and with respect to
what I feel I can do with it. This imposes my *own* guidelines for approaching
a reading, for example. I don't bother with prediction because I don't do
that very well. My judgement of my success with it is not conditioned by *your*
expectations of what *I* should be doing with it.

I render evaluations of personality, and I try to offer advice to get people
out of binds caused by some lack of self-perception. That is what I do best
*at this time*.

I also operate in *conjunction* with the person; this is *not* a blind test.
I do this much as a psychologist would, through exploration. The person is
coming to me for advice and I expect them to cooperate with me; and when they
do, I sharpen my understanding of my craft, and I give them better answers.

If you'd like to experiment to see this done, then I'll ask for a volunteer
from the "audience" here - who *honestly* has no axe to grind in either
direction, though it *would* admittedly help if they were open to the process.
*You* are disqualified, because, from my point of view, you are hostile to
this. I don't expect *you* to cooperate in the way *I* need to make the
process a successful one.

So I ask for either someone with an open mind to this, or someone who has a
positive, if uninformed attitude toward it, to volunteer to have their chart
read to them over the net. This person must be willing to answer personal
questions *honestly* and *completely*, so they must have no fear of public
self-disclosure. This person *must* be able to provide the following
information:

Precise time of birth (consult the birth certificate.)
Place (name) of birth
Date of birth
Gender

and, in times to come, the answers to specific questions that I will have.
This person can work with me privately where the answers would be
embarrassing, but they must be willing to come forward on the net to explain,
to the limits of their comfort, what was discussed, and whether I had made
fair guesses - that is, *they* will be telling *you-all* whether I am on
the mark, and how well I am doing.

I do *not* expect to precisely define this person. People are too vast to
do this. The more closely I work with them, the more appropriate my answers
will be. But DO NOT MISTAKE that I will be telling them things about themselves
that I could not POSSIBLY know otherwise. I *shall* do this, and for *me*,
this is proof that what I am doing is valid.

Unfortunately for you also, I declare openly that I am also a trance medium,
and a psychic. I am *not* very good at using these skills, but I do well
enough to make the declaration *openly*.

I can't do this with several people at once - at least not with my limited
time on the net; I have a lot of work to do in "soc.bi", so I must spend
most of my time there. But I am a Mensan, and I have every intention of
*refuting* people who deny the "occult" world, for I *know* that to be the
*larger* world within which I work. Therefore, I will select one or two charts
from amongst those offered.

To those of you who offer to do this with me: DO NOT falsify your information,
and DO NOT play games with me on this. This is a "garbage-in, garbage-out"
process. You must be an *honest* participant in this process; and I am willing
to conduct the entire exchange *on the net*. So respect that, please.

This should be quite educational - you will see the process as *I* perform it.

There you have it.
I will allow a week's worth of response, consisting of chart information
as I have described it, to be submitted to me privately or publicly.
I will name one or two individuals whose chart(s) I will discuss.
Some charts are easier for me than others, so I will admit that I will
choose charts which seem easier to deal with - those containing a lot
of concordant, reinforced themes. I will cite such sources as I use, and
I will explain my methodology - and/or answer questions about it.

There's the gauntlet for you, to watch this go down. DO NOT submit yourself
under guise. I'll do YOUR chart or that of the other skeptic (crawdad), if you
so wish, after the exchange I describe above is complete.

I WILL, however, provide chart information to those asking for it, through
PRIVATE mail, they should provide a mailing address or fax number; I will
not provide an interpretation, just the chart.

I will stand by my own knowledge and experience here.

So, okay. Takers, anyone?
-ecsd

p.s.: my employment here is uncertain after the 1st week of October.
Should I lose net access, I will post that fact and resume this discussion
when I can. Wish me luck to stay on here . . . thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa