i wonder if it's really Ella's birthday....

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

<< But I will give you one good reason why your birthdate is irrelevant.

And that is that people are influenced to such a great extent by their upbringing and early experiences in life that nullify any innate characteristic. >>

Thats a nonsensical point, Sandy.

Why do you presuppose they are any more mutually exclusive than Nature v Nurture. Both exist hand in hand, Sandy.

I don't presuppose they are I just know that upbringing IS a factor in character building, whereas I have no more evidence that birth date/time has any more grounds for influence than what they had to eat or what clothes they wore. In fact there is a possibility that these two are factors in the outcome of the developed adult so I perhaps shouldn't have used them for comparison.

It is not that I have just made up my mind either. It is just that I see no possible logic in it to make the vaguest possibility of any doubt.

I am far more likely to believe in Gus's Communism or LL's nationalisation policy than this astrology stuff. True their logic is pathetic but there is at least something tangible to argue about.

Oh c'mon, Sandy. You at least need to put in the effort to make it tanglible. Thats why I dont have any born-again beliefs - unlike Dirk the most vociferous of Atheists!

I will only believe what I see with my own eyes. And thats the whole point..I got into this to prove to someone it was nonsense and it would have occurred if it wasn't for a few bizarre coincidences (i'm wary of mentioning fate!). The bemusement led to incessant further attempts but the sheer number of concidences were startling.

One example is when I was aked to do a chart for someone who was on QQR a few times called Meg. She always uses herself as avatar and everyones first opinion is slightly scarey..a better word would be Saturnine.

I got all the details, took a mere 5 minutes looking at the chart and told her. This just doesnt seem anything like you. I didnt even bother with it but checked that all the date and times etc... They were totally correct..so I asked her if she sure she was born in California. It tuned out she was but was born in North Cali rather than LA.

It was the same time zone. So I checked again and the only way I could get the chart to make sense was to add an hour and and then it would change radically to the strong willed rebellious, independent traits I was looking for.

After that failure Id given up until the next day I suggested the only way it made sense was if an hour was added and if it wasnt time zones then it had to be Summer time change and that semed unlikley in California.

I mentioned that. She said N.Cali wasnt that freezing in Winter and that unlike S.Cali they changed the clock. Voila the chart finally fitted.

..its anecdotal of course but it only becomes obvious with experience. And moreover she was another person who stuck out like a sore thumb. I only bother with unusual people because i'm less interested in the astrology than getting examples where the cards are stacked so you know if the conclusion is definitely right or wrong.

By unusual..Hitler, Thatcher, Madonna, Elvis..lots of people show odd traits. And odd trait result in interestingly complex charts. See any description when the demure 18 yr old Diana was around. All astrologers - even the daft media ones - said the same thing. She isnt remotely placid but rather a real handful for the Monarchy and a can of worms..so be warned.

As for spurious science. Well Dawkins and his 'meme theory' is a here today, gone tomorrow fad that will soon be forgotten (possibly even in my lifetime). No science is older than Astrology, Sandy..you may not like that fact - bit its true all the same!

[Daz Madrigal]

gus2 said:

sandywinder said:

Errm exactly how do you calculate a chart without a time let alone date of birth. Only the fatheads at the Cheese can answer that mystery.

Talking of the cheese I see that exco has left the sinking ship. and please no rat jokes although I am talking about cheese ;D
I really hope he comes here and or the JSG, both boards are much more suited to excos talents than the deadbeats that wander about on the Cheese, there are exeptions of course and they to seem to wasting away in the wilderness.
Hell hathe no fury like a woman scorned eh mimi , I know you really really miss me so blow me a kiss or just blow me.

gus

I think Mimi got it right really.

Its for old people who want to swap pleasantries and have a quiet time.

And Exco was equally correct. If you want a vibrant exchange of ideas and opinions then you won't find it there or on QQR. Gargs suggested it should be like a Virtual Pub - although with two teetotalers on board thats somewhat difficult

[Daz Madrigal]

Actually the biggest problem is getting some balance between somewhat stressed arguments and everyday banalities and jokes and a few games.

I must admit even I get a bit stressed by some peoples idea of political debates. I mean how do you argue with BNP supporters one minute and then someone who thinks the USA is the fulcrum of Evil the next.

And then you wake up the next day and its all disappeared into cybernet aether - hmm why bother?

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

<< But I will give you one good reason why your birthdate is irrelevant.

And that is that people are influenced to such a great extent by their upbringing and early experiences in life that nullify any innate characteristic. >>

Thats a nonsensical point, Sandy.

Why do you presuppose they are any more mutually exclusive than Nature v Nurture. Both exist hand in hand, Sandy.

I don't presuppose they are I just know that upbringing IS a factor in character building, whereas I have no more evidence that birth date/time has any more grounds for influence than what they had to eat or what clothes they wore. In fact there is a possibility that these two are factors in the outcome of the developed adult so I perhaps shouldn't have used them for comparison.
. True their logic is pathetic but there is at least something tangible to argue about.

So when you look at a stranger you can actually see something tangible in their DNA. Sandy.

Thats a rare gift.

[mimi]

madrigalman said:

I think Mimi got it right really. Its for old people who want to swap pleasantries and have a quiet time.

Be fair Daz! I also said the cheeseboard produces discussions without personal rudeness. The quiet time is just a comfortable bonus.

Things are pretty quiet over here these days, don't you think?

[multi]

That's because we drift between Freespeech and James St George.

[Daz Madrigal]

And we're missing Darinka's prodigous input due to some new and unfortunate office arrangements.

[Pink Betty]

Multi, you may drift around Freespeach - some of us are not able to, should we care to .

[Pink Betty]

But i always enjoy your potted reports !

[Daz Madrigal]

Potty reports?

Who are we talking about here, CG.erm..Mel! I've just realised that I have t got to the trouble of changing my avatar

[gus2]

mimi2 said:

madrigalman said:

I think Mimi got it right really. Its for old people who want to swap pleasantries and have a quiet time.

Be fair Daz! I also said the cheeseboard produces discussions without personal rudeness. The quiet time is just a comfortable bonus.

Things are pretty quiet over here these days, don't you think?

Let me tell you something, if it is quiet in here they have already called the coroner in over on the cheese, and btw when are you going to stop taking cheap pot shots at me.

gus

[gus2]

multi said:

That's because we drift between Freespeech and James St George.

I have been welcomed on JSG do you think they will do the same on freespeach if i pop in and say hi.

gus

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

I don't presuppose they are I just know that upbringing IS a factor in character building, whereas I have no more evidence that birth date/time has any more grounds for influence than what they had to eat or what clothes they wore. In fact there is a possibility that these two are factors in the outcome of the developed adult so I perhaps shouldn't have used them for comparison.

It is not that I have just made up my mind either. It is just that I see no possible logic in it to make the vaguest possibility of any doubt.

I am far more likely to believe in Gus's Communism or LL's nationalisation policy than this astrology stuff. True their logic is pathetic but there is at least something tangible to argue about.

Oh c'mon, Sandy. You at least need to put in the effort to make it tanglible. Thats why I dont have any born-again beliefs - unlike Dirk the most vociferous of Atheists!

I will only believe what I see with my own eyes. And thats the whole point..I got into this to prove to someone it was nonsense and it would have occurred if it wasn't for a few bizarre coincidences (i'm wary of mentioning fate!). The bemusement led to incessant further attempts but the sheer number of concidences were startling.

One example is when I was aked to do a chart for someone who was on QQR a few times called Meg. She always uses herself as avatar and everyones first opinion is slightly scarey..a better word would be Saturnine.

I got all the details, took a mere 5 minutes looking at the chart and told her. This just doesnt seem anything like you. I didnt even bother with it but checked that all the date and times etc... They were totally correct..so I asked her if she sure she was born in California. It tuned out she was but was born in North Cali rather than LA.

It was the same time zone. So I checked again and the only way I could get the chart to make sense was to add an hour and and then it would change radically to the strong willed rebellious, independent traits I was looking for.

After that failure Id given up until the next day I suggested the only way it made sense was if an hour was added and if it wasnt time zones then it had to be Summer time change and that semed unlikley in California.

I mentioned that. She said N.Cali wasnt that freezing in Winter and that unlike S.Cali they changed the clock. Voila the chart finally fitted.

..its anecdotal of course but it only becomes obvious with experience. And moreover she was another person who stuck out like a sore thumb. I only bother with unusual people because i'm less interested in the astrology than getting examples where the cards are stacked so you know if the conclusion is definitely right or wrong.

By unusual..Hitler, Thatcher, Madonna, Elvis..lots of people show odd traits. And odd trait result in interestingly complex charts. See any description when the demure 18 yr old Diana was around. All astrologers - even the daft media ones - said the same thing. She isnt remotely placid but rather a real handful for the Monarchy and a can of worms..so be warned.

As for spurious science. Well Dawkins and his 'meme theory' is a here today, gone tomorrow fad that will soon be forgotten (possibly even in my lifetime). No science is older than Astrology, Sandy..you may not like that fact - bit its true all the same!

But Daz old friend you have fallen for the quackery that exitrs in so many otehr areas.

The biggest one of all is religion.

Don't you see that there is a striking similarity between astrology and God belief?

Thousand of years ago man would look to the skies for inspiration, messages, portents etc. They worshipped the sun and moon as Gods. What you are talking about is just a variation of this.

I am quite sure that if you try hard enough and bend the data to suit the character of an individual you will never fail to make it look like there is some sense in it all.

You mentioned people like Newton, Da Vinci etc previously as being clever people. I do not dispute this BUT they only had the knowledge of their time.

If they were alive today I am sure they would think it was all a load of mumbo jumbo as most people do. They would not be wasting their time studying astrology but Global Warming or the latest techniques in medicine and drugs (stem cells, DNA, cloning or dangerous viruses).

I can just imagine Newton walking home after a night of debauchery and saying to his wife 'Hi Mrs N. looky here, I knoweth I'm late back but Jupiter was in Capricorn so I had to have a few of thee pints with ye lads and then blow me but on the way home I spotted thy sister just as the moon was on the wane in Taurus so I shaggeth the arse off her'.

No Daz the stars are just stars. All the baloney about them being something special and portentous has long since been consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

I don't presuppose they are I just know that upbringing IS a factor in character building, whereas I have no more evidence that birth date/time has any more grounds for influence than what they had to eat or what clothes they wore. In fact there is a possibility that these two are factors in the outcome of the developed adult so I perhaps shouldn't have used them for comparison.
. True their logic is pathetic but there is at least something tangible to argue about.

So when you look at a stranger you can actually see something tangible in their DNA. Sandy.

Thats a rare gift.

No of course not. That would be as bloody daft as star charts are.

But a person's make up is a result of heredity, the near random mixing of parental genes, possibly even pregnancy and birthing factors and upbringing. Nothing supernatural is needed.

Take me for instance I am a libra, which is supposedly a sign of balance but do I come across as a person who routinely sees both sides of an argument? I don't think so.

Now I couldn't give you the exact time of my birth but I am sure it is completely irrelevant in what kind of a person I am today. Although I am sure that if I did give you all my details you would miraculously be able to tell me that astrology just fits the kind of person I am.

Maybe you should read this:

www.rickross.com/reference/general/general574.html

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg


which is further comment on the study.


<<< For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits.

The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at regular intervals.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative." >>>

What beats me is why anyone would bother wasting their time undertaking such a pointless study in the first place.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

So when you look at a stranger you can actually see something tangible in their DNA. Sandy.

Thats a rare gift.

No of course not. That would be as bloody daft as star charts are.

But a person's make up is a result of heredity, the near random mixing of parental genes, possibly even pregnancy and birthing factors and upbringing. Nothing supernatural is needed.

Take me for instance I am a libra, which is supposedly a sign of balance but do I come across as a person who routinely sees both sides of an argument? I don't think so.

Now I couldn't give you the exact time of my birth but I am sure it is completely irrelevant in what kind of a person I am today. Although I am sure that if I did give you all my details you would miraculously be able to tell me that astrology just fits the kind of person I am.

Maybe you should read this:

www.rickross.com/reference/general/general574.html

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg


which is further comment on the study.


<<< For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits.

The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at regular intervals.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative." >>>

What beats me is why anyone would bother wasting their time undertaking such a pointless study in the first place.

Yes I will read it although it shows a basic misunderstanding in trying to bash specific traits into -as you said - people from different backgrounds and with different genetics. All three interweave rather than cancel each other out which is something scientists have difficulty with.

Science is reductionist whilst Metaphysics is integrative and encompassing.

For example a mercurial chart gives the person a vast scope in which to act upon that impulse. It can be used for good or bad for example. A mercurial person may make a good cat burglar but he may also make a tricky sportsman (or as in George Best combine the two!).

Anyway I'll return to it later.