daffy's_astrology_faq Dafremen Daffy's Astrology FAQ with your host Roger Dafremen In order to answer some of the questions I get asked about astrology, I thought I'd put together an FAQ. Now this is NOT an FAQ of what astrologers believe. This is an FAQ of what I believe to be true in regards to astrology. When I present an opinion or theory, I'll let you know. If I present something that my research has backed, I will let you know. If I present information that is based on common astrological practice, I'll let you know. I've tried to start with the questions that a hard-boiled skeptic might ask, and work my way into questions that the CURIOUS skeptic, and then the genuine aficionado might ask. I'm no expert, but I have been doing my homework, because I really want to find out the TRUTH about this stuff. I'm not taking your word for it, or HER word for it or HIS word for it. I'm not listening to YOUR reasons why it's a bunch of crap or HIS or HER reasons why it's a bunch of crap. I'm finding out for myself, studying this stuff, interviewing people and observing objectively. In my own life, I have recently managed to find advantage to using this stuff. Whether that's a side effect of putting illogical rubbish into practice remains to be seen. As of this writing, my marriage has improved and I DO seem to understand the inner motivations of the people around me much better than I ever did before. Admittedly, I could be simply paying more attention to them, but I am not now nor have I ever been easily drawn into mental goofery, not even by my own mind. It has been a source of pride to me that I am able to detach myself from my emotions and my desires in order to make rational decisions based on logic and objective observation. It is this same detachment that I have tried to bring to my study of astrology. I am looking for the TRUTH and I must not disregard that which is reasonably possible. So I'm pursuing the only thing that will logically determine anything to be outside the realm of possibilities: PROOF that it is FALSE. Any REASONABLE disproof will do. So far, no such luck. Q: What is astrology? A: Astrology is the study of the correlation between the movements and positions of the bodies in our solar system (all called planets in astrology) and the observed effects these bodies have on human events and human behavior. Over thousands of years, certain patterns have been observed by astrologers which have been recorded and passed on. These patterns include human personality traits, market patterns, world events and events in the lives of individuals among others. My only area of research into astrology up to this point has involved what is known as humanistic astrology. Q: What is humanistic astrology? A: When you read about your SIGN, you are reading of humanistic astrology. When you read your daily horoscope, you are reading of predictive astrology which attempts to foretell the future based on patterns of influences observed before. There are many other types of astrology. The area that I have concerned myself with is the one that involves personality and behavior in people. Basically, humanistic astrology tells us how people are LIKELY to view the world and be viewed BY the people in it, in a very general sense. If you are a Leo Sun Sign (or Moon Sign or Ascendant), astrology teaches that you will likely be very intense in love and loyalty to the ones you love, that you are probably impulsive and courageous, but very fixed in your opinion once you've made up your mind. If you are a Cancer person, you have a deep need for security, are also very loyal to your loved ones, imaginative and very sensitive to criticism and have a tendency to nurture. Humanistic astrology trys to tell us much more about each of the different influences in human personality. Q: Why did you choose humanistic astrology? A: I chose to research humanistic astrology for two very logical reasons: The results are known immediately, not at some time in the future. This lends itself well to research. Secondly, humanistic astrology is not really as interpretive as predictive astrology. I can ask someone if they like shopping for antiques, get a straight answer, and be reasonably certain that the answer isn't based on their subjective opinion to any great extent. That's the other advantage, although their are many general statements throughout astrology, there are many more SPECIFIC details found in humanistic astrology. Q: What about the contradictions? One astrologer says one thing, then another says another. Isn't it easy to make one thing or another fit then? A: Sure, and usually when we see these types of statements we are dealing with a subjective question like: Will an Aries man and a Cancer woman be good together? These are areas that require interpretation based on an astrologer's ability to weave the data into a coherent picture. Experience and competency of the astrologer in question would play a large part in this type of interpretive information. Sometimes we are simply dealing with plain old-fashioned differences of opinion. What I have tried to do is stick with the things that astrologers seem to agree on and throw out anything which appears to be based on the opinion of a particular astrologer. When an astrologer has been particularly insightful and accurate, I may take some of their observations and test them by asking specific questions based on that information. If it doesn't hold water, I throw it out. I want data, not wishful thinking. Q: Why did you get into astrology in the first place? A: I got into astrology quite by accident. A software engineer, I have been laughing off astrology as spiritual, superstitious claptrap for most of my life. One day, in late 1999, I was at an auction with my wife, when a box of psychology books came up for bid. Noone was interested, and I have ALWAYS collected books on all sorts of subjects, so with the bidding at one dollar, I bought the box. While my wife went about looking at housewares, I started looking through my books to see if there was anything interesting. Psychology has always fascinated me and so I knew I would find entertainment there. What I found near the bottom was a book titled "The Zodiac and Its Mysteries."(online at zodiac.fragzaintskillz.com) I immediately assumed that it was a hippie bible from the seventies and opened the cover to see when it had been published. Inside the front cover was a photo of a man dressed in turn of the century clothing who claimed to be "The World's Foremost Astrologer." The copyright date was 1915. A huge history buff, I was tickled by the chance to see how turn-of-the-century man might have learned of this stars and fate hogwash. Turning the pages to the Libra section(my Sun sign), I prepared myself for a good laugh. I read the first page, then the second, then the third...I wasn't laughing. In fact, my jaw dropped slightly. "Well THAT was an interesting coincidence", I thought, so after finishing the chapter, I turned the book to the Cancer chapter...once again, prepared to laugh off my reaction to the first chapter. After finishing THAT chapter, I turned to my wife and said, "Honey, you have GOT to hear this." It was as if someone had cracked our skulls open and looked into our personalities. Understand, that I had read Sun sign descriptions before. Only once had I heard anything that didn't seem vague and contradictory to me. That was a chapter out of a book called Love Signs, which described the relationship between my wife and myself perfectly. I had dismissed THAT as coincidence and vague mind trickery as well. This time, there was enough to keep me curious. I started reading the book to my friends and coworkers, simply as a curiosity(I would have been too embarrassed at the time to have claimed a genuine interest.) With few exceptions, they were intrigued (as I had been) by the idea of reading a turn of the century book on astrology. Also with few exceptions, they were amazed with the specific details that the author presented and how accurately they fit their personality profiles. (Even the Virgos, who were rarely impressed, had nothing to say about 'vagueries that could apply to anyone.' One tried, I pointed out a few passages and asked him to explain them. He couldn't.) I was becoming VERY skeptical of my skepticism at this point. I began to think that although I DIDN'T believe in this stuff, I also COULDN'T go on quoting the "Skeptic's Mantra of Reasons Why Astrology is Crap" without first investigating for myself. As Dr. Einstein had taught me, I could end up looking the fool for claiming the falsity of something which I had not disproved. It was at that point that I began my investigation. I do NOT believe in fate or predestiny, I believe we make our own fate and that our current situation is the result of our past actions. It was with this admittedly somewhat closeminded motivation that I set out to disprove astrology. I wanted to show where the astrologers could NOT be right. Little did I know, the data and the facts would not prove to be on my side. I'm still looking though. Q: What type of research did you do to disprove astrology? A: Well, my understanding up to that point was limited to a single book. I decided that I need to throw out anything but the most SPECIFIC statements in that book. I also decided that I would NOT look into the planetary magnetic influences and solar currents that my 19th century source suggested were the cause of these things. It would have been easy to write the whole thing off if I had taken any of the God fearing or pseudo-scientific stuff into account. I decided that what MATTERED to my research were the traits mentioned. Particularly the specific traits and the MARKED traits. If a statement was vague, it did NOT make it into my questionaires. My questionaires consisted of questions like: Do you like to dance? Do you have the urge to move your furniture at least once a week? Do you change your hair frequently? (includes, style, color or length) Do you find yourself getting angry if someone states even the slightest criticism of a friend, even if that criticism is true? Are your arms long in proportion of your body?(Use your best judgment. Half of your body length is not long, longer than that probably is.) Do you normally walk fast?(Fast being faster than most people you know.) Are you jealous? Do you have a fairly large nose? Do you have bushy eyebrows(If they are allowed to grow out to natural length.) Do you enjoy the nude human form in art?(This does not refer to pornographic material, but an actual artistic appreciation of the human body as art.) Do you find yourself telling friends an idea or joke that you made up, only to find them saying that they TOLD you that idea or joke? And, of course I asked: When is your birthday? There were many more questions, most pulled out of the book, some being wordings of concepts put forth in the book. (For instance, "a receptive mind", "can't tell ideas that originated in their own brain and the brains of others" being the basis of that last question.) I then proceeded to ask everyone I could think of, to help me with this survey, online and in person. I've interviewed 163 people to date and YES some things applied to many different people but, HERE'S the interesting thing: Almost to a question (90.4%), if a person was answering a question about a trait which supposedly was characteristic of their Sun sign, the answer was YES. Over and over again I observed this pattern. Of the 163 interviews, 23 were given misleading questionaires; questionaires which had no Sun sign matched characteristics. I did this for purposes of comparison. The average was miserable in comparison, around 50%. At this point I had a preliminary conclusion: There was SOMETHING here. I didn't know what, and I still don't, but I needed to come up with a hypothesis before I could continue.Both logic and my personal pride (ok fine, my ego) demanded that I come up with a way of explaining this phenomenon or explaining it away. Saying that it was a coincidence was too easy (although I thought about it); it amounted to a cop-out. I certainly couldn't support a conclusion that I couldn't debate effectively, that's not my nature. I need to be able to back up what I believe, with logic, I'm a logical guy dammit. So I thought about it and came face-to-face with some startlingly obvious facts that had never occurred to me before. Q: Ok, long-winded one, what did you come up with to explain this astrology stuff? A: Well I came up with a hypothesis, but first let me ask you, the reader, the questions that I asked myself: 1. What do people born at the same time of the year share besides their time of birth, that OTHER people probably do NOT have in common with them? To answer that question, I decided to stick with the PHYSICAL influences. That led me to ask question number two: 2. What is there in my environment that did not come from the Earth and will not return to the Earth? (I threw out the occasional meteorite and the 800lbs or so of moon rocks that we brought back.) The answer to question two was, after 3 days of pondering, nothing except the Sun's radiant energy in various forms(light, heat). Nothing. We are made of Earth and so is everything around us. The answers to question number one were similar: There is the distance of the Sun from the Earth and it's effects both in terms of gravitational influence (which some say is a tiny environmental factor, but one which is actually around 1/3 of the cause of tidal activity here on Earth) and relative temperature. The ratio of day to night at that time of year. (Although repeated TWICE every year, the progression is different, in the first half of the year the days grow longer, the second half they grow shorter.) That was what I had. That was all. But it was SOMETHING, whereas before I had always assumed that this stuff was ridiculous for just that reason: because there appeared to be NO logical influences which connected people by birthdate, at least NOW there was a PHYSICAL, logically POSSIBLE connection. That meant that not only had I failed to disprove this crap statistically, I had failed to close off all LOGICAL avenues of inquiry. Where there was a physical, environmental influence in common, there was always the possibility of a logical explanation for the phenomenon. To summarize: We and everything around us is made of the same stuff. Everyone born around the same time of the year is subject to the same ratio of day to night and the same gravitational influences of the Sun. (The Sun's gravitational pull causes the Earth's rotation time to slow by 30 milliseconds in the first half of the year, to speed back up again during the second half.) Q: Ok, so you found this connection, but what do the duration of day and night, the distance of the Sun to the Earth and the fact that we're all made of Earth have to do with astrology and human personality? A: Good question. I'm not sure. I really don't know, but it would be presumptuous and lazy of me to claim that I had proven my case against astrology simply because I couldn't explain a connection between environment and personality. In fact, everything done in the field of psychology points to environment, both physical and psychological as playing a factor in the development of personality during early childhood. Nature itself had shown me how foolish it would be to state that humans couldn't be affected by changes in length of day or relative temperature. The natural world is replete with examples showing animals and plants changing their behavior and even their physical development as a result of seasonal variations in their environment, and in rythmn with the lunar cycles(humans are no exception.) Even the ratio of day to night has been found to be the cause of behaviors manifested in plants and animals. They're made of the same stuff we are, Earth. Again, although I haven't been handed the Book of All Knowledge, I also haven't encountered ONE SINGLE SHRED of EVIDENCE which would ACTUALLY disprove a possible connection. The possibility of that connection is there and my research tends to indicate that there is SOMETHING there, even if I cannot explain it. Even if it has NOTHING to do with these physical connections, there is SOMETHING there. Q: What about the fact that the gravitational influence of the heavenly bodies is so small? A: I went down that avenue too, then decided that it was NOT conclusive evidence against astrology and certainly not against the research data. The Moon immediately decided to stand in my way on that one. The Sun did too. We weigh less in the day than at night.(Unless the Moon is on the other side of the planet.) This is a fact. Some say that it's a minute difference as far as the Sun's influence is concerned but, in fact the Sun causes the oceans to raise as the Moon does. The Sun also has other much more significant influences on our environment. The Moon, as I mentioned, lifts up our oceans twice a day at a ratio of 11 to 5 with the Sun.(That's about 2/3 Moon and 1/3 Sun.) We, like the earth, are mostly water. Almost the same percent water as the Earth in fact. 60% to 70%, depending upon who you ask and whether you are male or female. So although I COULD have listened to the common "wisdom" and written off the Sun's gravitational influence, the Moon wouldn't be so cooperative. Besides, the Sun's influence WAS there...and it WASN'T small. What I was starting to wonder was what it is that we know about EARLY, VERY EARLY brain development and how the early brain sees its environment before it has introduced itself to the body's senses fully. How would it perceive an environment that it could only sense on a very primitive level? Would it's first impressions be of gravitational influences, no matter how small? The movement of liquids within it at a cellular level even? Q: And the planets? Aren't they too far away? A: Yes, I agree. This puzzles me and I'm looking into the accuracy of these "planet-influenced" characteristics. I have begun to do research into this by doing charts for individuals, hoping to find where these details prove accurate, if anywhere, and where they do not. What should be obvious is that if I can't write off the influence of the Sun's gravitational effects, I will have a hard time logically arguing that it is impossible for the planets to have a similar influence, if indeed such an influence exists. Possibly, statistical data will help me to disprove this influence. In fairness, I must add that the results of my research thus far seem to back the idea of planetary influence. Like I said, it puzzles me. Q: Aren't there forces affecting us every day which apply more force to our physical brains and bodies? Take acceleration for instance. Isn't accelerating forward in a car the same as gravity pulling us backward? A: You would think so. I know I did, but then I looked into the failure of "false gravity" experiments in space. For those who aren't aware of the problem, NASA has been trying to understand why astronauts lose bone mass while they are in space.(The astronauts come back after months of low gravity and their bones are brittle.) They have tried creating fake gravity by using centrifugal force so that "gravity" is felt on the inside of say a spinning cylinder. It would work to keep their feet on the "ground"(ie. FEEL like gravity), it doesn't work to keep them from losing bone mass. To ME, the obvious conclusion seems that there is some component of gravity which we do NOT normally associate with gravity. Something that we do …Ð ã …GET http://www.cuco.com.ar/madre_del_agexplain why our finest empirical scientists haven't solved the mystery yet). That is speculation, but it IS possible at this time and we HAVE been wrong about the nature of gravity many times before, so ruling out the possibility that there is SOME way that even weak gravitational fields could affect us, seems premature. Hopefully NASA will solve this riddle and then perhaps I can get gravity and maybe even the planets out of the way. At this point I cannot. That would be a cop-out. Like saying I know the ending of a murder mystery before the author himself had written it. Q: Ok, so let's say that these tiny gravitational influences DO affect us, wouldn't they STILL be affecting us? A: Well, IF they do, yes, one would think that they would continue to affect us. In fact, THAT is the premise of predictive astrology. The chart of one's birth influences are compared against the chart of those same planetary positions at a particular point in time, say in the future or even in the past. 'Horoscope' is simply an astrological term for a snapshot of the planetary positions relative to the Earth at a given point in time. There are natal horoscopes (birth charts), progressive(future snapshots) and regressive horoscopes(past snapshots), even compatibility horoscopes(snapshots comparing individual horoscopes to each other). Q: Well couldn't one prove or disprove the accuracy of astrology by using regressive horoscopes then? By looking to see if the horoscopes match events that have already happened? A: I suppose one could say that regressive horoscopes, which are charts of PAST planetary positions, could be used to demonstrate the reliability of predictive astrology, and in fact, this has been done. The results in many cases have been astounding, but then INTERPRETATION is a factor and one study claimed that the astrologer might have made the chart fit the facts of the past. Besides, reading a chart is a pain, there are a lot of components that have to be woven into a single picture. That's tough in ANY discipline, trust me I was a project manager, I know. I would say that in order to perform that sort of experiment conclusively, one would need to KNOW that one had a competent astrologer, and the only way to know if one has a competent predictive astrologer would be through the accuracy of his readings. Sort of a catch 22. You can't prove it or disprove it until you prove it. Q: Ok, so let's get away from theory. It's a fact that the Sun has moved from where it was thousands of years ago. The constellations don't even match up anymore. Doesn't that indicate that astrology is flawed? If it were true, wouldn't the signs change over the centuries? How can they claim the same influences at the same times of the year if the signs have changed positions? A: At first that seems like a good question. It was one I asked myself and it was one of my strongest arguments against the legitimacy of astrology as a science. Most respected astronomers would agree that astrology is incapable of resolving it's claims with the fact that the stars and indeed the Sun have changed positions. Like I said, SOUNDS like a good question and a strong argument against astrology. It isn't. One of the first things that I learned was that ASTROLOGY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POSITIONS OF THE STARS. The positions of the constellations have no effect on the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of astrological calculations. The zodiacal signs are areas of influence which fall along a belt 8 degrees above and 8 degrees below the elliptic. (The plane that the Sun and all of the planets fall on. Imagine a solar system model. If you put a big thick paper belt around the outside edge of the solar system model, that would be the zodiac. Divide that belt into twelve sections, each section would be a sign.) Basically, the effect of the zodiac is based on the position of the Sun, the Moon and the planets in our solar system, evidenced by it's being confined to the elliptic of our solar system. Only Pluto goes outside that elliptic in it's orbit. The zodiac is solar system relative, NOT star relative. So once again, the argument that the Sun and stars have moved, as much as it seems like a disproof of astrology, disproves nothing. To the contrary, it actually weakens the position of those of us who have used it, by pointing out our ignorance of what astrologers do and do not believe. If we, instead of listening to what our respected scientists tell us about astrology's teachings, had read what those who STUDY astrology had to say about their methods, we could have avoided this huge foi pas. Who would you ask to explain physics to you? A microbiologist? Would you ask a Civil War historian to give you insights into astronomy? Why rely on the statements of astronomers to explain the fallacy of astrology? Astronomers know little or nothing about the practice or teachings of astrology, astrologers do. Again, we make fools of our skepticism (which may in fact be a very LOGICAL skepticism) by following the mistaken conclusions of our scientific community about astrology and then concluding that we have "researched" astrology sufficiently. If we stop there, we most certainly have NOT. We have simply demonstrated our prejudice in the matter and can risk being labelled jackasses by history. As it is, it's probably best that we just sweep this "strong" argument of ours under the rug before anyone notices how unprepared we were when we came to the debate. Q: What about Pluto and the other planets that have been found in modern times? How do astrologers just ADD influences like that? Doesn't that make the whole thing seem hoaky? A: Yes it does. It's probably one of the strongest arguments I have been able to find against astrology's claims. However, even in ancient times, there were other "unknown" influences that astrologers suspected were out there. Those planets that, in astrology, had multiple signs assigned to them (Mars, Venus, Mercury) were said to rule one sign naturally (Mars - Aries, Venus - Libra, Mercury - Gemini) and another temporarily (Mars - Scorpio, Venus - Taurus, Mercury - Virgo). There was also Pisces which was later assigned to Neptune and Aquarius which was assigned to Uranus. When Pluto was discovered in 1930, Scorpio was assigned to it. According to astrologers, there remain two more bodies to be found: Vulcan - natural ruler of Virgo and Pan-Horus or Apollo - natural ruler of Taurus. They have claimed that there are 12 planets (including the Moon and the Sun) for thousands of years, they just haven't known where the others were and couldn't chart them. Ok, so that is the astrological explanation and INDEED, these claims HAVE been made since ancient times, but STILL. How does one explain what SOME astrologers claim? That the people with temporary rulers began to change after their planets were discovered? It DOES sound hoaky to me, but it doesn't disprove anything, so it is of little use to my investigation. If planetary influences turn out to have ANY basis in reality, it should be OBVIOUS that people born under various influences will NOT have had their characteristics change simply because their planets were discovered. THAT much, in the realm of logic IS poppycock. Unfortunately, I am not the type to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Because some physicists thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and were wrong does not prove that the science of physics is complete horse crap with no basis in reality. It also did not invalidate many of their calculations. In fact, they were very accurate, just also very wrong about the nature of the solar system. It simply proves that human beings are capable of coming to the wrong conclusion and that history eventually rectifies those errors in judgment. Q: Ok, so what about the research that psychologists have done into Sun sign astrology? They all seem to agree that there is nothing there that coincidence and statistical probabilitiy couldn't explain away. A: Indeed that seems to be the case, but that is really a misnomer. Every study cited has a basic flaw: reliance on Sun sign information ONLY. I ALSO used Sun sign information, but, admittedly I refined my questioning by first doing a few tests and weeding out those questions that were less likely to be applicable. In other words, I found out which characteristics were USUALLY true of particular Sun signs and which seemed less likely to be true. The rationale was this: astrology teaches that the Sun sign is only ONE of the astrological influences that define human personality. Here are some of the others: Moon Sign, Ascendant or Rising sign, Planetary positions, Zodiacal position. In addition ASTROLOGY DOES NOT DENY THE PART THAT THE FOLLOWING PLAY IN THE FORMATION OF HUMAN PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR: Hereditary influences, cultural influences, psychological and psychiatric factors. Rather, astrology claims that these things are painted upon the basic canvas that is formed by astrological influences, and that they are painted using the brushes which atrological influences supply us. What I found interesting, was that in the vast majority of studies where other astrological factors besides Sun signs were taken into account, the results were fairly consistent and usually pointed to the accuracy of astrological information.(Course, I'm not about to take THEIR word for it anymore than the skeptics word.) Here's the rub however, and the reason that empirical science continues to deny these studies: almost EVERY researcher who has done objective research and concluded that there MIGHT be something to this astrology stuff, has been later discredited and laughed at. Even VERY distinguished and respected researchers have, in effect, given up their careers and their reputations for doing their jobs. It seems that the empirical scientific community doesn't even want to entertain the POSSIBILITY that there is something to astrology. Faced with losing their careers and having their reputations sullied, most researchers have chosen to stay away from objective research into astrology. Either that or, if their results showed that astrology was more accurate than assumed, they have quietly buried that research. Only those whose results have supported the idea that astrology is nonsense have dared publish their findings among the general scientific community. This serves only to bolster that view among scientists. A self fulfilling skepticism fueled by ignorance. It almost makes me ashamed to admit the deep respect I have for empirical science. I have no reputation to speak of, nor do I have a career to risk. I simply want to know the truth, one way, or the other. Preliminary evidence shows that there is something here. Scientists should investigate further and without fear of being black balled by their peers. THIS ENDS THE 'HARDCORE SKEPTICS' SECTION OF THE FAQ. If you have other questions or comments, feel free to email them to me at dafremen@hotmail.com . I will try to answer them as promptly as possible. For the sake of continuity, it would be appreciated if you waited until the main body of this FAQ is finished before responding here. Thank you in advance. THIS NEXT SECTION WILL BE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THE CURIOUS SKEPTIC MIGHT HAVE. These will be presented as information that anyone can use in their research that might help them see for themselves whether or not they can find any useable information within the teachings of astrology. Up to this point, I have found certain traits to be USUALLY true about certain Sun sign types. THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALWAYS TRUE, IT MEANS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. The patterns are unmistakable and they are not based upon vagueries which are subject to interpretation, as any reasonable inquiry will reveal. The fact that some of these traits could "APPLY TO ANYONE" is irrelevant. They do not. Such a statement only serves to confuse the researcher by helping him to overlook much more useful questions such as: "Does it apply in most cases to individual Sun sign types?" If I can point to a person of a X Sun sign type and tell you that more likely than not he will behave in Y manner or exhibit Z characteristic, can't we agree that such information is useful? Here is another example, the insurance institute has raised insurance rates for drivers under 25 years of age. They have found that more likely than not, these drivers will be involved in accidents. If I say that drivers under 25 can get into accidents, you might say "that can apply to ANYONE". Indeed, but does it apply, more often than not, to drivers under 25? According to the insurance institute, yes it does, and they have found this information useful in reducing their losses even though it doesn't apply to ALL drivers under the age of 25. In this section, I will also give some basic astrological information. I may be wrong, I'm an amateur myself. I'll try to check and double check before I answer these questions, so rest assured that I'm not out to misinform people or provide my statements with a convenient escape route. We all live and learn as we do. Let's hope that never stops being as true for me as it is for each of you. 021111 ... Dafremen see also: Daffy's_Astrology_FAQ2 021117 ... tchiseen smart, use the site as a free host. cheap, but smart 040423 ... eskimos friend that's not what he was doing at all. he was using blather to inform people who were interested enough to read this. and certainly a lot of people here are at the least curious about astrology. daf said a lot of interesting things about it, taught us a lot. it wasn't some kind of ploy, it was no abuse of blatherspace, and i personally don't think it was a waste of it either (but what i'm writing here is, annoyingly, go figure). 040423 ... oldephebe does anyone have any insights into water signs? 040423 ... kookaburra i am one, what do you need to know? "and the pisces sadly realized that she hated to swim" 040423 ... oldephebe why can't i get along with gemini's, what's the apparent friction with scorpio women that i seem to encounter..i'm drawn and yet seem to encounter this wall..this obdurate will and reticense..what's the deal with all the overt emotionalism..why do people often mistake generosity and or spirituality with weakness..why does it hurt me when i have to disabuse them of their misconceptions..wow way too much.. what's with the whole being in love with Night, intensley interior.. 040423 ... kookaburra o wow i thought you meant you wanted to know how pisceans acted. i dont really know other peoples signs to figure out how i interact with them. "Hi new person, whats your name? how old are you? whens your b-day? whats yo sign???" but anyways, your troubles with women stem from the fact that you are a cold fish. ha ha ha ha (arent i witty?) 040423 ... er no but the truth hurts *falls to floor, arms akimbo* 040423 ... kookaburra you know i was being sarcastic rite. i hope so. i cant respect people who cant tell the difference between earnest and sarcastic. (i be a bit disgusted) 040423 ... i need a brisk soul enema please, please i'm in my happy place now 040424 what's it to you? who go blather from