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

[Daz Madrigal]

<< 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? >>

Again thats a complete misuderstanding.

Its a sign of the Scales not balance.

Depending on the rest of the chart the Scales are what they are. They may be balanced or they may equally be totally unbalanced.

In your case - which will come as no great surpise - they are totally unbalanced! ;D

...no seriously your skimming the surface without knowing the true interpretation.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

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.

So you don't have to be a LEO to be a cat burglar then?

Bugger. All those houses I could have robbed, if I 'd known.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< 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? >>

Again thats a complete misuderstanding.


And you are ignorinmg the vidence that it's all a load of hogwash.
Its a sign of the Scales not balance.

Depending on the rest of the chart the Scales are what they are. They may be balanced or they may equally be totally unbalanced.

In your case - which will come as no great surpise - they are totally unbalanced! ;D

...no seriously your skimming the surface without knowing the true interpretation.

And you are ignoring the evidence (which took me all of ten seconds to find) that it's all a load of hogwash.

[Daz Madrigal]

No the exigencies of time, Sandy, suggest I look at it later on.

[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.

I'm going to have to take this point by point.

<< 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. >>

Its far from the truth.

Lots of member of my family have brothers and sisters with the same beginning and same heredity but are often complete opposites.

When this arises, its one of those rare occasions when astrology is at its most potent as an explanation.

If two brothers are very similar, then the charts - in my experience - show many more similarities.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< 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. >>

No.

I wouldn't make it so easy.

It wouldn't be worth the effort because as explained earlier - opinions and world views are intrinsically entrenched and often immovable - but on the occasions when someone says..I don't really believe it but I'll give it a try then I'd do a totally blind chart..i.e. someone who I had no knowledge of.

Theres little point. Its not religion. It doesn't matter one iota to me what anyone believes. If Gus believes in Communism I don't trash him but respect his viewpoint.

What I'm trying to do is unwrap all the silly mystique of the thing and show how relatively pedestrian and humdrum the process actually is. The problem lies in the fact that it only appears obvious the more you learn - as with everything.

To a printer working just a few decades ago, a very basic early Computer works by some strange unfathomable process. If it wasn't for that mystique I may well be penniless or working in the Civil Service now. Yet the person replaced was a much more skilled craftsmen than I'll ever be - compositing is a skill that most of us could acquire but not to the excellence an apprenticeship and 40 yrs experience give you. The skill is matched to the constant practice and we had one of the best compositors in M/cr..but sadly not a match for the computer.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Maybe you should read this:

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

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg >>

Do I really have to, Sandy?

I can easily point you to several much larger studies saying the complete opposite which to this day remained unchallenged by science, even after 50 yrs.

Look up Michel Guaquelin and do yourself a favour.

[Daz Madrigal]

On the surface its seems impressive.

It says << They reviewed the evidence from over 700 astrologers >>

Its doubtful whether there are 700 competent astrologers in the whole of the USA so where they get these people from is a mystery. Proper astrologers are relatively few and far between. To describe Russel Grant as an Astrologer - as the Telegraph does - is frankly taking the piss.

I'd be willing to accept the results as done in good faith but flawed for the same reasons given in the first post of the thread.

I'd take out the 'ordinary man in the street' out of the equation for the same reasons you give. Nature and Nurture.

And I'd suggest that whoever possesses an element of the unique or personal charisma gives far better indication of its value which is why I moreorless gave it up.

In short I think that theres an interweaving of nature, nurture but the icing on the cake is an extra ability more linked to something unquantifiable such as 'the ability to make an impression or charisma, star quality'.

Its akin to the Big Brother house - its full of nonentities who are merely products of their own empty and vacuous pop culture. Only occasionally and with great luck does one find a person who makes people run to their TV sets in anticipation of some true entertainment.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

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.

I'm going to have to take this point by point.

<< 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. >>

Its far from the truth.

Lots of member of my family have brothers and sisters with the same beginning and same heredity but are often complete opposites.

When this arises, its one of those rare occasions when astrology is at its most potent as an explanation.

If two brothers are very similar, then the charts - in my experience - show many more similarities.

As I said it is not just heredity. And no two people no matter how closely related have the same experiences in their youth (unless perhaps if they are joined at the hip - but not always even then).

Fort example one child could be abused while the sibling may not be.

And not all Siamese twins are alike in character but according to astrology this would have to be the case as they are both born at exactly the same instant. No twisting of the data can change that.

So it is all bilge Daz, or should I call you Nostradamus?

Time for you to move on to Tarot cards or Christianity.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< 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. >>

No.

I wouldn't make it so easy.

It wouldn't be worth the effort because as explained earlier - opinions and world views are intrinsically entrenched and often immovable - but on the occasions when someone says..I don't really believe it but I'll give it a try then I'd do a totally blind chart..i.e. someone who I had no knowledge of.

Theres little point. Its not religion. It doesn't matter one iota to me what anyone believes. If Gus believes in Communism I don't trash him but respect his viewpoint.

What I'm trying to do is unwrap all the silly mystique of the thing and show how relatively pedestrian and humdrum the process actually is. The problem lies in the fact that it only appears obvious the more you learn - as with everything.

To a printer working just a few decades ago, a very basic early Computer works by some strange unfathomable process. If it wasn't for that mystique I may well be penniless or working in the Civil Service now. Yet the person replaced was a much more skilled craftsmen than I'll ever be - compositing is a skill that most of us could acquire but not to the excellence an apprenticeship and 40 yrs experience give you. The skill is matched to the constant practice and we had one of the best compositors in M/cr..but sadly not a match for the computer.

Well you have blathered on about astrology but still haven't given me any logic to back up your belief. And so there is nothing much to argue against.

As for Gus' beliefs I think we have both trashed his ideas many times but that doesn't mean we don't respect him. The same is the case with your belief in astroturf or whatever.

Your beliefs remind me of Druids two thousand years who would study the sky and make them fit the lives of those around him. The same goes for all religions today. They are all nonsense as well and I am not afraid to trash those ideas ideas either, but that doesn't mean I can't respect those views.

The problem you have got is that the more that you have studied astrology the more you have been hypnotised by it and fallen for it. Just like a devout Muslim or Christian.

But give me some proof that it works and I promise I will take it seriously. Just as I would with UFO sightings, ghosts, fairies and anything else of that illogical nature.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< Maybe you should read this:

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

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg >>

Do I really have to, Sandy?

I can easily point you to several much larger studies saying the complete opposite which to this day remained unchallenged by science, even after 50 yrs.

Look up Michel Guaquelin and do yourself a favour.

Sure thing, Daz. I'm game.

<<< Gauquelin set himself the task of analyzing astrology statistically by studying various correlations using very large samples of birth data. An example from one of his earlier books in 1967 is what he called the "test of opposed destinies" which entailed astrologers being asked to separate the birth charts of twenty well-known criminals from twenty non-criminals. They did no better than chance. (The Cosmic Clocks, 1967) >>>

But it would not remotely surprising that a believer would be able to find plenty of evidence to back up his claims. The same was the case with homeopathy. One doctor (who had made a comfortable living out of it) provided evidence that homeopathy worked in trials but when this was monitored by a quack debunker the results could not be repeated.

While the logic of homeopathy is shaky at best it does at least have some behind it.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

On the surface its seems impressive.

It says << They reviewed the evidence from over 700 astrologers >>

Its doubtful whether there are 700 competent astrologers in the whole of the USA so where they get these people from is a mystery. Proper astrologers are relatively few and far between. To describe Russel Grant as an Astrologer - as the Telegraph does - is frankly taking the piss.

I'd be willing to accept the results as done in good faith but flawed for the same reasons given in the first post of the thread.

I'd take out the 'ordinary man in the street' out of the equation for the same reasons you give. Nature and Nurture.

And I'd suggest that whoever possesses an element of the unique or personal charisma gives far better indication of its value which is why I moreorless gave it up.

In short I think that theres an interweaving of nature, nurture but the icing on the cake is an extra ability more linked to something unquantifiable such as 'the ability to make an impression or charisma, star quality'.

Its akin to the Big Brother house - its full of nonentities who are merely products of their own empty and vacuous pop culture. Only occasionally and with great luck does one find a person who makes people run to their TV sets in anticipation of some true entertainment.

I'm sorry but 'taking out the man in street' will not wash. If it works for one it should work for all, otherwise what is the point?

All that is going to happen is that most people are wasting their money and potentially making some disastrous decisions on the basis of quackery.

[Daz Madrigal]

That isn't what I said.

I'm not impying that it doesn't work for everyone but that like musical ability, some get to the standard of playing 'chopsticks' over and over and others use the full breadth of the keyboard.

There are other methods. If someone suggested that she had two daughters or sons who were total opposites in temperament and could I tell the 2 apart from just a time and date of birth I'd say 'no problem'. But thats the only trust I have. I can't speak for different tests because you've only chosen the ones opposing (which isn't surprising).

As I say, Sandy. It is all a question of perception. A political scandal is written about totally differently in the Guardian to the Telegraph. For example, Ruth Kelly is doing the best for her daughter in the Labour press whilst in the Tory press she is a cynical hypocrite of the first order. Each looks at the same event through the eyeglasses of their preconceptions.

All I can say, is that whenever put to the test I've managed it with some success!

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

<< Maybe you should read this:

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

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg >>

Do I really have to, Sandy?

I can easily point you to several much larger studies saying the complete opposite which to this day remained unchallenged by science, even after 50 yrs.

Look up Michel Guaquelin and do yourself a favour.

Sure thing, Daz. I'm game.

<<< Gauquelin set himself the task of analyzing astrology statistically by studying various correlations using very large samples of birth data. An example from one of his earlier books in 1967 is what he called the "test of opposed destinies" which entailed astrologers being asked to separate the birth charts of twenty well-known criminals from twenty non-criminals. They did no better than chance. (The Cosmic Clocks, 1967) >>>

But it would not remotely surprising that a believer would be able to find plenty of evidence to back up his claims. The same was the case with homeopathy. One doctor (who had made a comfortable living out of it) provided evidence that homeopathy worked in trials but when this was monitored by a quack debunker the results could not be repeated.

While the logic of homeopathy is shaky at best it does at least have some behind it.

Whats that?

You put a drop of potion in and then you 'shakey thee bottle!'

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

<< Maybe you should read this:

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

or this:

digbig.com/4qpxg >>

Do I really have to, Sandy?

I can easily point you to several much larger studies saying the complete opposite which to this day remained unchallenged by science, even after 50 yrs.

Look up Michel Guaquelin and do yourself a favour.

Sure thing, Daz. I'm game.

<<< Gauquelin set himself the task of analyzing astrology statistically by studying various correlations using very large samples of birth data. An example from one of his earlier books in 1967 is what he called the "test of opposed destinies" which entailed astrologers being asked to separate the birth charts of twenty well-known criminals from twenty non-criminals. They did no better than chance. (The Cosmic Clocks, 1967) >>>

But it would not remotely surprising that a believer would be able to find plenty of evidence to back up his claims. The same was the case with homeopathy. One doctor (who had made a comfortable living out of it) provided evidence that homeopathy worked in trials but when this was monitored by a quack debunker the results could not be repeated.

While the logic of homeopathy is shaky at best it does at least have some behind it.

Well you've managed to find the one test in which he failed whilst ignoring the other 90 per cent so it should be pointed out that these links are highly selective.

The problem remains that in what possible respect can I prove or disprove the proposition?

Usually..or at least in the distant past I'd maybe take some trouble to proffer some evidence but it depends on the reciprient. If he/she has all ready made their mind up on the matter -as I keep saying - no amount of messing around will change it.

..err..if ample proof were needed look no further than JSG. Every time I logon there I hope for a warm reception..some small reward for my efforts at elucidating the truth. And all I get is some neaderthal BNP remark or some left wing Communist who is so utterly bonkers he thinks the Fundamentalists in the USA are of far more danger to the World than Al Queda.

...talk about throwing seed on stoney ground!