From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology (skeptical of skeptics)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:24:10 GMT

I'm tired, why am I doing this?

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>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,

>If you mean "Elle" McPherson, she'll be very busy the next few days
>anyway, so don't worry about it.

Yes, with my dog, in Sydney. My horse will take longer to reach there.

>>Please forgive any misspellings.
>
>See above.  Don't worry about it.

Run it thru 'spell'. Ur beder yet, luk it opp dood.
       ^^^^  <== mee first!

>>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
>
>It didn't look that bad.  Maybe you're overreacting.  Besides, you didn't
>expect astrology to be that popular, did you?  It seemed you'd been
>given a nice opportunity to turn some skeptics around.  Go crazy!

Guess it was the D.T.s - my third day no alcohol. They looked like monsters
to me! Mean, nasty men, all sharpening their swords.

Well, first person to guess their thumbnail sketch was right. (Shit, they
didn't post it here - no - it was in my mail. ??) {Is anyone here watching
me write this? (looks behind the terminal) No, I guess not.}

>>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.
>
>Yeah, that's right.  When you have an audience to win over, you don't go
>to them and say, "Prove you don't believe me!"  This isn't really a debate,
>but an opportunity to sway some people who don't currently care all that
>much what you say.  It may be irrational, but it's the nature of the
>role of the "rebel".  

If they don't care so much, why don't they make their challenges FUNNY?
Maybe they did. OOPS. Joke's on me. {sore loser}

>>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
>
>Personally, why would I even care about sending you lots of anecdotal
>evidence about horoscopes and how they meant nothing?  Why would you care?

Stops them from posting. 'least cuts it down.
(Don't worry, they aren't listening.)

>>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

>This is very mild abuse, if that's what it is.  Have you been receiving
>bad e-mail?  I agree that would be annoying, but you are the lecturer/
>teacher here.  You are the salesman/barker/pitchman/defender/sponsor.
>If you don't like that role, dump it and give up.  But actually, lots of
>people on this group seem to enjoy your posts, so why not take the bull
>by the horns, so to speak?

So I was fried. Cost of being straight. No, my emotional context is very
permeable. Probably if I walked in the office that day they'd've taken one
look at me and said, don't kid him today, he's in the shits. But I meant
it too though - what's it cost to say "nyah nyah"? Not much.
I can't ask to be "left alone" or have the skeptics "be quiet" while the
readings are going on, but something about the pompousness of a trivially
easy broadside - foo, say something new.

>>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.
>>
>
>F**k 'em.

Yeah, but no, I have to enact my own chart all over the place. Mars has to
go chase 'em around - the li'l scoundrels - upstart whippersnappers.

>>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
>
>It is a volunteer position, after all.

Yeah. So bite my leg while I'm handing out food. 'twas the image.
Stacey from alt.astrology - should impress these people here - if not
via astrology, then just with what she says and her attitude around it.

>>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,
>[....]
>>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
>
>I would say that their openness to this is at least partly due to your
>approach.  I'd also say that if it were not due to this approach, you
>wouldn't have many supporters on ROM.

Huh? I could believe astrology all day long and y'all'd never know. Who
was it - the - whaddyacallit - premier, principal, the first thing I ran
across here (that I recall) was "too bad the number of Mensans who believe
in {parts lost} "newage sewage" is not 0." I think that was Hollombe, and
when I said "Oh Yeah?" Crawdad responded. But 'twere my big mouth what dud it.

See, my chart says that I can support a self-designed archetypal mythology
which declares: what I do, I must be prepared to do nakedly and openly in
front of all the world, without fear, without shame, and without compromising
what that will be. This requires that I become wise in a damn hurry about
the subtle issue around whether I should manifest whatever I like, versus
being concerned with other people's feelings. As it turns out, doing this
integrates me along my masculine/feminine polarities and makes me feel much
more complete.

I've done a lot of social learning here.

An open mind when you ask for it.

>>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
>
>Lighten up, Eric.  You can't be so naive to think that anything worth
>thinking about at all isn't going to arouse its share of negativity.

Yeah, fine. I make up for Jesus a little bit; an eye for an eye feels good too.

>>I'm putting up. This isn't a forum to be children and abuse people
>
>Well, it's not supposed to be, but I agree wholeheartedly with you here.

I take it back. It's a forum to be children. The abuse part stays.

>>-ec "one pissed dude" sd
>
>Apparently.  But your best weapon is to do the charts, supply the
>data, let the public decide.  Debates after the presentation will
>be much more satisfying, I'll bet.  And it could be worse.  What if the
>other fellow you've discussed chose to dump endless, repetitive
>non-sequiturs about astrology to ROM?  The only thing worse than
>being made angry is being bored out of your skull by hitting "n"
>over and over and over and over and over........

You mean like with Tai? *groan*.
Hey, anger feels good. Nothing to balance being a vegetarian out with than
a niiice, juicy steak once in a while. Chomp.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa