From: praetzel@marconi.waterloo.edu (Eric Praetzel)
Subject: Re: Hello
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:17:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.212320.4635@ccd.harris.com> tsp@controls.ccd.harris.com (Timothy S. Pillsbury) writes:
>In article <y5N5NB2w163w@fractal>, you write:
>|> The threads I just saw seemed to be focusing on exorcising the
>|> skeptics, is that typical fare here?
>I've been following this group for a couple of months now so I can
>tell you what usually happens to skeptics here. Most of the ones
>that are exorcised (at least, "attempted" anyway) are known for
>expressing their skepticism in a rude and generally obnoxious manner.
   Dave and myself go back 6 or 8 months.  I must say that I have mellowed
a bit but did enjoy the bad-cop good-cop strategy while it was going.
  You will find that the skeptics have not seen any evidence for astrology
and dispute astrology as a scientific tool because it has no support at all.
About 1/2 of the astrologers believe in the _astrology_for_personal_exploration
and will disagree with any scientific basis.  Then there are the ones that are
left.  Some are rabid believers who can visualize evidence but not provide it
and a few who look for it and a few more who will say that the evidence is
small; but they are not going to spend time looking for it and instead will use
this obivously usefull tool, with obivous positive results.

>I have seen them (rude skeptics) post things to the group that I wouldn't
>say to another person unless they had really provoked me. Those
>kind of posts usually are met with the hostility that they seem intended
>to provoke.
  I have had a few come back to me in mail and some in posting using language
that I never have and never will use.  There are enough on both sides of the
fence to go around. Perhaps I am a bit different because I am used to ignoring
a lot of personal attacks and could not imagine anyone taking my posts
personally.

>However, I have seen a few genuine queries with hopes of illuminating
>others, and these were met with fairly good manners. L.McPherson
>seems to be most knowledgeable and seems well-mannered.
  I have some interesting ideas but I know that they will not convince anyone
of anything.  Of course if they supported astrology they would be hailed but
since they could only be construed as evidence against they would be ignored
at best.  The only illuminating things that you could be refering to are
believers who are positively receptive to anything in line with their beliefs.
I am still shocked that people would use any of this stuff (astrology) to
try and predict fertility when there has been lots of scientific research in
that area and indeed fokelore will probably be more accurate due to years of
(most likely) flawed observation.  Astrology may be a tool but there are much
better tools wherever a hard science is involved and I would add that there
are better tools where soft sciences are involved.  I still propose that most
if not all observed astrologic effects can be explained using basic psychology.
But then nobody listened to that 8 months ago and they care even less now.

  Unfortunately Dave and Windy are now on vacation so things will slow down
a bit.  I am up to my ears in preparing for the next school term and finishing
off marking and labs for this term so you will not see many posts from me.
  - Eric
//  The hatred that you project does nothing to protect you. 
//     - some modern music group