Jeca this is the place where daffy may dump the details of his "research," including the number and status variables (that means ages, backgrounds, where located) of his research subjects, the exact questions asked in his questionaire, the method in which his questions were posed to his subjects, and the distribution of their answers as opposed to their astrological signs. he may also cite the websites that back up his claim (and i'm sure there are many of THESE.)

this is also where daffy can collaborate to use his information to guess the signs of blatherites he does not have birth information on and help prove his case.

it is one thing to make an argument, or to put down those who do not believe you. it is quite another thing to make an argument citing facts and research in the argument itself. (facts are testable and observable, and a scientific finding should be re-enactable!)

use the rules that define science as science, or lose the title. fail to do so, and you have defined your covenant as based simply on faith.

and as a rule, i refuse to argue with a person's religion.
Dafremen My religion is scientific pantheism. If you would like to do some research you are welcome to. If you would like to sit on your ass and let me do that research, you're welcome to do that too. I will be putting together some things to look for and a basic introduction to astrology if you are interested in learning whether or not there is anything to this stuff. Until then, laziness is it's own reward and that will continue to be my answer to any skeptic who refuses to look into anything except discrediting those who HAVE chosen to do the hard work of looking into it. You don't want to know the truth, you want to refute something you know absolutely nothing about. I know little, but I know more than you do. Like it or not, you are the empirical idiot in this debate because you haven't done your homework.
Do the research yourself. I cannot hand you the truth, hell your astronomer's quote proved how poorly educated you are on the subject. Please try to be more objective, frankly it's embarrassing to those of us skeptics who are TRYING to be objective.

Dafremen P.S. In case you hadn't read my entire FAQ, I have yet to reach a viable conclusion. You really are going to sit there on the same presumptuous nothing that your atronomer source did aren't you? How do you reply to the fact that you were completely unaware that astrology didn't rely on the stars? In fact, let's use this blather instead to cite ALL of the sources of YOUR knowledge of astrology shall we? Please list all of your sources of astrological study. I'm intrigued, Carl Sagan himself admitted that he had done nothing more than read the articles of fellow astronomers and the entry in the encyclopedia. Do tell about your extensive research into astrology. 021112
Jeca this was a "please enlighten me"... why do you always turn these into personal attacks?

i admit i haven't spent years on the subject, but my viewpoint as of now is based on information that i can verify with, say, my astronomy software or by using newton's law of gravity (still have the formula somewhere). point is, i am most easily convinced by reproducible, raw data, and i was asking for yours. all you gave me was, "YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!!!" when i gave you mine. (or worse, you're carl sagan!)

my being an asshole or not being an asshole has nothing to do with the subject. my doing research or not doing research does not support YOUR argument-- you claim to have done some, but you dodge showing it. calling me ignorant or lazy is not making an argument about astrology, although it might be a valid argument in some other debate. and you wouldn’t get very far in science using your learnedness as the only support of your thesis, either.

if you haven't noticed, i HAVE been citing my sources.

my arguement you refer to did not have to do with the stars having an effect on people but that the fact that the qualities
(with me so far?)
associated with the signs
(still there?)
that are based on planet positions relative to zodiac stars
have not changed relative to our solar calendar version of time, i.e. if you were born on March 21, 100 A.D., the horoscope you might have had an astrologer draw up for you will make you the same general Aries that you would be in the year 2050. (as far as the sun and moon signs go)
yet the positions of these zodiac constellations relative to the horizon have changed.
our solar calendar and therefore our idea of time is based on the position of the sun relative to said horizon, making the day and night of March 21, 2050, because of the differences between a solar day and a sidereal day, look to all intents and purposes (as far as the sun and moon alignments go) like a day and night of March 19 or 20, 100 A.D.-- the difference of a whole sign, according to the astrological scale.

i can look this up with my software, or if you want to get very stickly about it we can find the difference in the night skies from the past to the present with historical evidence like the Almagest.

therefore, i argued that, since the birth signs (and therefore personality traits according to astrologers) are based on the solar calendar and our measure of the positions of the planets by time of year are on such disparate time scales, the link between the positions of the sun and moon to personality is called into question.

but what does it matter, anyway? i'm an idiot, and that therefore makes you right. if you are too intellectually advanced to provide concrete, gritty, reproducible evidence, then i'm obviously not at a level to be able to speak to you-- when i want to see if there is a basis for astrology i will go to lesser mortals who provide evidence instead of personal attacks on all who dare oppose them.
Dafremen Listen you lazy idiot, until you accept that the sun and stars determine how much or how little any given person likes to have his ass played with, you'll never see the truth. I bought a book once, at a garage sale, and although I wasn't sitting under a bodhi tree, I gained instant enlightenment regarding the Truth of Astrology. Ever since then I was able to determine a person's relative desire for assplay based solely on the date of his birth.

You want me to explain exactly how astrology works? Ha! Sorry--it's too complicated for you! And forget about the whole "the stars shifted" argument, because as sensible as it seems, it doesn't refute MY astrology. See, there are a lot of FAKE astrologers out there, like those fools who write Horoscopes for newspapers. But I'm a REAL astrologer. I have SECRET KNOWLEDGE regarding the nature of TRUE astrology (i.e., the kind that is ill-defined and therefore difficult to disprove). So remember, when you refute any form of astrology, you've only refuted FAKE astrology and not Super Daffyman's Patented REAL Astrology. So suck on that, do0d!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do some Relative Assplay Desire testing (I call it RAD testing, for short).
Dafremen I don't believe that I ever used the phrase asshole, nor did I imply it. If I did, an apology would be forthcoming. I may have used the expression "lazy-ass" which, if you think about it is how it appears to someone who has worked as hard as I have researching this stuff. I mean honestly, how can I PROVE anything to another human being? I cannot, even giving you the data you ask for, I could only present what few conclusions I have drawn and allow you the opportunity to PROVE it to yourself. I would not expect you to take anything I tell you at face value anymore than I would expect you to take an astronomer's word at face value. You are NOT informed at ALL about astrology. That much is evidenced by the source you quote in answers_for_the_astrology_skeptic. He states that the recession of the zodiacal constellations proves the fallacy of astrology, but in fact, any beginning astrology buff could correct him by demonstrating that zodiacal signs are not star based, but solar system based. The signs of the zodiac are 30 degree divisions in the space around the elliptic of our solar system. Like I said, not knowing THAT simple fact shows that you, like MANY people (including myself at one time) are brutally misinformed about the nature of astrological calculations. No astronomy program is going to tell you this. It's going to take studying astrological texts. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to take THEIR (the astrologers) word for certain things either. That would be JUST as foolish as taking my word, or the astronomer's word that you quoted. No, just find a good book, that is if you are REALLY interested in finding the TRUTH for yourself. I would recommend any book by Linda Goodman(who uses a lot of that spiritual this and that in her works, but who is still VERY insightful and accurate)like Sun Signs or Love Signs or the book that I have put online by A.F. Seward at zodiac.fragzaintskillz.com(try to throw out his God fearing rhetoric and his pseudoscientific theories).

Again, I don't believe that I ever called you an asshole, if I said anything that made you THINK that, then I hope this makes clear my feelings. I INVITE inquiry, I WANT you to find the truth too. If you come to a different conclusion, by all means, I welcome that too. The truth is what matters, not my opinion, my ego or yours or some astronomer's or some astrologer's.
As for my data, names, birthdates and what not, those were given in confidence and shall remain in my possession in confidence. You are welcome to get your own. Honestly, I don't mean to slight you or to be evasive, I simply don't feel that such a thing is appropriate, I hope you understand and am sorry if you don't.

P.S. As you can probably tell, our little friend the Daffy imposter has been up to his tricks again. They tell me if I ignore him he'll go away....but who'd want that? Life's a drag without challenges.
P.P.S. If I were to venture a guess at your Sun sign, it would be Virgo followed by Gemini or Sagittarius in that order. In my research and in my wanderings, these three Sun signs tend to be the most inclined to skepticism. Again, you're asking an AMATEUR (me) to do what even a seasoned astrologer would tell you is a difficult proposition. People are not set in stone, nor do they fall into 12 easily distinguishable categories. They are a blending of environmental, genetic and psychological factors. Astrology only claims to be part of one of those, an environmental factor.
??????? Hey douchebag, if you "can't prove" astrology, then shut the fuck up. 021114
??????? And in case you can't tell, MY alternate conclusion is that you are a douchebag. 021114
??????? And your claims as to what exactly astrology can prove seem weaker than ever. If your sign is only one of the many environmental factors that partially determine a person's various characteristics, then why go on and on about what the people born under a certain zodiac sign like to have done to their asses? How can you say that you don't believe there are 12 types of people and then write those zodiac profiles which imply exactly that? Please, split some hairs and tell me where I'm wrong.

Or... maybe astrology is just for entertainment purposes only.
Dafremen Behold the past in this one individual. Two hundred years from now, folks won't understand this person's motivations. Cruelty and pettiness for their own sake will be as alien to society as generosity without ulterior motive is to us now. I hope you will survive the transition. Noone deserves to be left behind..not even you. 021115
??????? "Cruelty and pettiness for their own sake"? Now who's guilty of the intentional fallacy? (Hint: that would be YOU, Daffyman).

But I guess I'm less evolved. And I guess you're the fucking overman or something. Congratulations.

At the end of the day, though, you're still the one who writes assplay-themed astrological profiles. And if that's what being part of the Shiny Special Altruistic Future entails, then I don't really want to be part of it.

The astrology preaching was pretty annoying, though. I'm glad you've backpedaled somewhat in that area.

But all "pettiness and cruelty" aside, let me ask you this: What about Chinese astrology? Chinese astrology is different, is it not? So why don't you believe in that? Have you investigated it?
??????? "Behold the past...". That's pretty queer. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you thought of that while receiving anal from an amorous mountain gorilla.

How about "cruelty and pettiness" for ART's sake? Which zodiac symbol imbues those born under it with THAT quality?
??????? And one last thing: Your whimsical desire to see humanity evolve is really special, like something an inspired teenager might scrawl in her journal.

And guess my sign. Come on, you've got a one in twelve chance. What do you care? I'm "just words on a page", so guess!
Jeca yikes daffy-- i'm sorry for implying you called me an a-hole, but you can call this guy one if you want to...

i can understand your not releasing data for reasons of confidentiality, and i think i will go out and do more reading about astrology.

P.S.-- I was born March 17, 1983-- a pisces as far as i've been able to gather.
Dafremen Thanks. That's actually interesting, because I had noticed that all of the "skeptical" Sun signs were mutable. I haven't interviewed more than 3 Pisces people, believe it or not and they remain something of a mystery to me. They are however the fourth mutable sign. Here, tell me about this...a certain source in one of my books mentions a Pisces tendency to not want to draw attention to themselves in public. Do you find this to be true? Also, would you mind giving me a shot at doing your birth chart? You could email me the birth stats and perhaps it would be revealing for both of us. Completely confidential, of course. 021117
Jeca i don't seem to have a problem in here, and in the real world i spend my summers as a tour guide for an archaeological site so no, i don't think i have a problem with public attention when it's called for. i used to be VERY shy in school, however, but even then when i had to be onstage for one thing or another (even solo!) i was fine with it. but yeah, i don't mind your doing my birth chart. what info do you need? 021119
Dafremen You've given me your birthdate. I need a place of birth and a time of birth.
(You may email those to me...if you like.)
Shyness as children seems to be a common thread among the few Pisces people I've spoken with(some of them still are). Professor Seward mentions this in the children section of the Pisces chapter. Another was generosity, like always wanting to help or give to others. Another thing I noticed was the WHY factor. They always wanted to know Why to every question I asked. According to Professor Seward, Pisces people tend to follow a path of inquiry to its conclusion, so I imagine if you start an investigation into this stuff, you probably wouldn't stop until you had your answer one way or another. That's comforting to know. I'm like that in many ways, but I do it for ego more than anything else. I couldn't stand to make more of a fool of myself than absolutely necessary, so I try to make sure that I investigate first.

You wouldn't believe how foolish I felt asking people about this stuff at first.
Jeca sorry daf i dissappeared! first, i don't know when i was born so i'm going to have to ask, and then i got swamped with life in general. i didn't forget about you though. 021125
Dafremen Haven't forgotten you either jeca. Just didn't have an email address to follow up. 021130
Dafremen Never did do this chart. Never got the birth info.

Sent stork daddy his chart. (see stork_daddy_fan_club)No reply.
Sent (PM) a chart. No reply.
Sent (Ph˛) a chart. No reply.
Sent an unknown blather somebody (A-Long you know who you are) their chart. No reply.

I've received exactly one response from one blatherskite out of the 12 charts put together for you folks.

Thanks krimilda.

(If you would like your chart done, send birth date, birth time and birth place information to me at dafremen@hotmail.com A response is not required, but would be appreciated, since this is an investigation into the accuracy of astrological information. )
what's it to you?
who go