daffy's_astrology_test_for_skeptics daf Here's what I suggest. You'll need a large collection of birthdates (and the people to go with them if that's what your experiment entails.) Get the birthdates, I'll generate the charts and from those many, many charts, we'll pick as many as you need with ONE criterion: The charts you pick MUST have the MAJORITY of the 10 traditional planets in the same sign as the Sun. That is the only stipulation. Then you can do whatever Sun sign experiments you'd like just about. The results will so blow the top off of random chance probabilities, that you'll probably want to do it again. Go ahead. Do it as many times as you like. Your results won't be wrong. It will have been YOU that was wrong all of this time. That's it. It's real simple, but I guarantee that not a single experiment that came up with negative results took that ONE single step because they were NOT astrologers...or not very deep thinking ones if they were. The Sun sign studies that skeptics quote again and again fail to take into account that people are NOT just their Sun sign. Sun sign information is general at best...UNLESS the person has a predominance of planets in that same sign. Then you basically are stacking the odds in FAVOR of the Sun sign characteristics. You're making sure that more aspects of this persons life fall under that influence than any other. You'll have your proof then. 050826 ... Dafremen Ok look. It's obvious that most of you skeptics are very busy and all, what with all of the time you spend looking for articles to argue about things you know nothing about. (And please, don't tell me you spend hardly any time at all looking for them, that's even worse.) So anyhow, let me make this even a MORE surefire thing. I mean you ABSOLUTELY will NOT be wasting your time. You will get SURE fire results...I'll stake my pecker on it. (Is that a good enough "pinky" swear for you?) Here's what you do to refine it even more. Make sure the following planets are in the same sign as the Sun: Moon, Venus, Mars and the Ascendant if you can. See? And that's not even but HALF of the ten. Go on. You can do it. It's time to stop letting the other guys do the legwork. Come on now. Chop chop. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 Why not replicate that study mentioned on your other astrology page? 050826 ... Dafremen I don't have to. That's why. For instance I can tell you a few things and you could go off and do an experiment of your own if you were so inclined. First, and foremost. I mean if you REALLY REALLY are in this for the truth and not just to pit your ego up against mine. (Which I find a bit pointless. What the hell are you comparing yourself to? You don't know me.) First you'll need to learn a few basic things about the various signs. Now I'm not asking you to believe anything, man. I'm asking you to be a man(or woman as it were) for gawd sake and look into something instead of having it spoon fed to you by someone you don't (or hardly) know. (Pardon the assumption..I'm a bit tired of these circles.) Ok so what I'm asking is that you learn that the signs are really just symbols for these very esoteric archetypes that are so complex to describe with words that it takes a lot of them. But they can be adequately described in symbols. Ok each symbol has a meaning...but it is a VERY rich and complex meaning that you will spend a long time refining your understanding of. Not just the signs are symbols, but also the planets...and the houses. They represent concepts. The relationship between these sign, house and planetary concepts helps you to weed out traits, until you are down to some very specific notions. I'll give you an example... The Moon is a very influential symbol. It represents our deep, intuitive, instinctual nature. It represents our dreams, our childhood, our memories and those things that form our most deep rooted behaviors. It reprepsent the feminine aspect in its purest form. Cancer represents much the same thing. This is why they say that Cancer is ruled by the Moon. The nature of that symbol...its meaning is such that you can pull much from the ideas associated with the Moon. So Cancer will be a symbol preoccupied perhaps with the past. Childhood. A symbol which has a deep connection to memories. A symbol that represents survival. We can then branch off into the macro or microcosmic. It's just an archetype. We can look at the fact Cancer represents survival and nurturing. They are survivors and nurturers. Plants are survivors and nurturers. We can look for a connection there. Is there one? Yes, almost certainly there is a plant connection. It's been known for many, many milennia. Cancer is associated with the Moon which is associated with water everywhere on Earth. Cancer is associated with water, in particular, the ocean and all liquid water in motion. (Please don't ask me to justify the connections...there is work to be done first, then you can come up with your own theories on how things work.) I'm just trying to, in a very short space, give you an idea of how simple, yet complex astrology really is. Mars represents drive. It represents the things that push us, that excite us. (That is a huge oversimplification...but its good enough for you to use.) Venus represents the things that we love. Attraction. It is the things that we are pulled toward. Now if we have a chart that contains say Venus in Cancer, I might say something like (male OR female): Are you pretty close to your mother? Do you like plants? Do you like history? Do you keep lots of photos? Do you keep money stashed in strange places for security? These are sort of passive things. Venus is a passive symbol. If a chart contained Mars in Cancer, I might look at the more active side of Cancerian activities.. Do you like to travel? Are you fond of yard sales/thrift stores/swap meets(ie. hunting) (Never forget that deep instinctual survival urge. It keeps money in their wallets.) It really is as simple as a mix and match game of concrete, yet very complex concepts. If it weren't, they couldn't have written a computer program that will literally knock yer socks off with the data it spits out. That's what finally convinced me. Shalom to you then, whoever you are. If you want to prove it...there ya go. It's there to prove and its as real as you like. I can't prove it to you personally. I'm done wasting my time trying to make decisions that were never mine to make in the first place. But you can prove it to yourself. The answer is there and I'll help in any way I can. I just won't arm wrestle anymore. It makes me feel kinda stupid, like we're having a head butting contest or something. 050826 ... dafremen And do0d...how can you sit there and doubt that its worth looking into?! I bet my f**king penis for gawd sake! I have no intention of losing it. The experiment will succeed and can be duplicated again and again. I'm sure of it. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 If astrology works, you should be able to draw up personality profiles of individuals if you are given their birth dates, times, and places. If you then were given personality profiles based on those same individuals' answers to a series of questions, you should be able to match the two profiles (i.e., you should be able to match the astrology profile to the non-astrology profile). That's what was done in that study, and the astrologers failed. That's why you should be interested in that study. A person who was interested in "the truth" would be interested in that study. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 Here's the link again: http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html 050826 ... unhinged well the premise of that study totally misses the point of astrology. astrology doesn't claim to predict personalities. it gives you lists of likely characteristics. daf just illustrated to you a couple posts above him that the only way you get a personality profile using astrology is to ask the person questions based on other predictive aspects of astrology. the sign itself is not the predictive part of astrology. so therefore an astrologer OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be able to give you a personality profile based on the person's sign information alone. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 "...to ask the person questions based on other predictive aspects of astrology..." It is my understanding that Dafremen says that if you give him the relevent birth data, he can draw up a profile. Without any additional questions. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 But even so, if the astrologer can only draw up a profile after asking substantive questions (i.e., not birth data questions) then what is the point of astrology? Psychologists and Match.com can give you a personality profile after asking substantive questions. Are you saying that astrology is a counseling tool with no predictive qualities? 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 On review of Dafremen's other astrology page, he says that a computer program can do a "very good interpretation" of a person's chart, and all it needs to do this is a person's time, date, and place of birth. I assume a "chart" contains information that could be characterized as a "personality profile." Thus, astrologers should be able to match those profiles with other non-astrology profiles if the assertions of astrology are true. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 "so therefore an astrologer OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be able to give you a personality profile based on the person's sign information alone." While some astrologers may not claim so, I believe that Dafremen did, unless we have fundamentally different ideas about what a "chart" is, what a "personality profile" is, or what a person's "sign information" is. 050826 ... dafremen In case noone has noticed. This guy has come up with a game. He calls it the fill up the page and goad a reaction game. Turning my suggestion. Good solid research he could do. He's not interested. This guy's hand is played. He's doing this for the exercise it provides his ego. On another note, it also acts as a sort of passive censorship, one that he knows I can't deny my own participation in. (If he's even thought of it at all.) As the page gets bigger, it takes longer and longer to load, decreasing the chance that the statements at the beginning will ever get read. The easiest way to coax out the sharks, the intellectual animals and the egotistical predators is with the right bait...nothing calls em in like a nice, fat, juicy wriggling EGO! CAUGHT YA! Ok folks, we caught us this brute...his name...usc something or other. Remember this. I can catch as many of these as you like.. To a big fat ego...there is nothing more irresistible to pounce on than another big fat ego. It's like blood to sharks... Heheh question IS. How long can I keep im on the line? You realize that all I have to do is brag and boast and start talking down to him like I think I'm some big shot and he'll come rippin itno me and then we'll even get to meet some others. That's how these animals work. Well hi there! How are you? Would you like me to squeeze some more blood in the water? (I'm sharkproof baby. There hows that?) see also: meet_the_beast That concludes today's experiment in how ego attracts bigger egos. Have a wonderful evening ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy the show. 050826 ... 42 usc 1983 Didn't take much to ruffle your feathers, did it? I encourage anyone interested to read this page, then decide who is simply filling up space. All I'm saying is that you claim to be able to write a profile based on birth date, time, and place. That's a testable claim, and it has been tested. And guess what? Astrology has failed. Show me some credible studies that say otherwise. 050826 ... REAListic optimIST usc why don't you either put up or shut up? either do your own research or STFU. don't quote some other random research and then say that for some random reason it negates all other research, especially research you could be doing yourself but choose not to because you'd rather slam on someone else than check it out for yourself. if you are looking for some random research to back up an opinion you already have, you are going to find it every time. ah i've said too much already. it's not like you are likely to heed my advice and actually do the footwork yourself, so i'll just go on my merry way now. 050826 ... egger will come back to this when sewing deadlines aren't knocking so loudly. 050826 ... anne-girl hey, daffy... after reading all this extensive argument, I'm mildly curious - if i gave you m'birthdate, could you astrologize it? Or maybe point me at a astrologizing program? 050827 ... DannyH Firstly I'd like to point out that although I have shown my skepticism on these issues in the past, none of these knockers is me this time. But I am interested in your test. if I gave you five birthdays and got the five people to read all the charts and see if they could pick theirs would you consider that fair? I promise to carry this test out without prejudice. You have the word of an English Gentleman on this. 050827 ... pepperdrinks this is all very intriguing. i am not a skeptic, but i don't think this experiment is going to prove anything. my chart is only correct if done very specifically (date, location, and time of birth)...and people who don't believe aren't going to change their minds based on this. they'll call it a fluke. 050827 ... daf anne! Daaaahlink! Absoluuuuley we coulda doa dat fo jo0! Just send date, time and place of birth to dafremen@gmail.com NO NAMES PLEASE. All astrological services provided are free and results are absolutely confidential. YOU tell the skeptics about your results if you like. I won't. Astrology asks me to treat your chart with respect, and discretion. misstree already performed the same test you're suggesting DannyH. She was given two fakes and a real chart interpretation. Why not have her describe the results to you? Now what I've outlined is a sort of "astrological prescreening process", that would really make Sun sign characteristics pop out, providing recordable, repeatable results for serious researchers. 050827 ... daf I'm sorry pepperdrinks. I forgot you. That was rude of me. First of, let me set your mind at ease about one thing: I'm not worried about proving anything to anyone. I happen to know, and correct me if need be, that you cannot convince anyone of anything. So can plant the seeds and hope they grow. That's it. People have to convince themselves. see also: free_gold_bricks Secondly, let me assure you that with just your birthday, I would have a pretty good shot at pulling at least a few personal details out of my backside. It is very likely I would have enough information to avoid major miscommunications or missteps. However, if you want the REALLY, REALLY good stuff that folks seem to say they want, well then you want a full chart. Certainly it's relevant. This is the single greatest tool available to people today for understanding the people around them. (The source of the majority of our problems today? Misunderstandings...miscommunications. 050827 ... DannyH Fakes don't work for me. You see, my anxiety would be that astrological charts work because they are recognisable to anyone as a good description of some aspect of human nature. The fakes you created could just be less accurate descriptions of humanity so be rejected for that reason. Incidentally I would add that I have never rejected the idea that astrology, in comon with the I Ching does contain some powerful insights into human personality in general. My question is whether specific charts relate to specific birth dates. For this reason I need a set of genuine charts to attempt to link to real birthdates. I think my test would be fun and enlightening for both of us and would provide a real test. I'm genuinely open to being convinced. We could double blind the test too. you could not tell me which chart linked to which dates so there was no way I could fix it, we could then publish my results and you could reveal which was which simultaneously. I could also get five people who know each other and could get them to guess who they thought each chart related to giving us a test of self-perception fit and fit with the perceptions of others. I'd really like to do this and I know I could get willing volounteers. I really hope you feel able to give this a spin. 050827 ... DannyH Come to think of it. I don't need to do anything else except give you the dates and places. I can then do the experiment myself. Okay then. I'll give you as many as I can find. Email to dafremen@hotmail.com? 050827 ... dafremen Danny... I had already thought about your reservations. When I say FAKES...what I mean is this: You take a known person....say like yourself. We generate your actual chart with a computer program. Then I change the birth information to someone of your same Sun sign, but the other planets in extremely different signs. We use the SAME computer program to generate the "fake" charts. THAT is the experiment that misstree did. I didn't manipulate the data in anyway. (On a side note, I'd like to mention how truly wearisome it is getting to be laying out all of this information, and having people say things like "The fakes you created could just be less accurate descriptions of humanity so be rejected for that reason" which is a very descriptive and round-about way of saying that you think I would try to skew the results. I'm doing my level best to try to meet you skeptical folks halfway. Please do show the decency to give me some credit for NOT trying to insult your intelligence. Oh, and please stop insulting mine.) Your test is unrealistic Danny. It is unrealistic for the simple reason that the subjects, having not passed through the above filter, would certainly find commonalities in each of the charts that they could relate to. "You're Every Sign" isn't just the title of the best book you can buy on Sun sign astrology, it's also usually an astrological fact. Now if you were to provide me with a pool of say...40 people? (I'm trying to be fair to us both.) From those 40 people, I would select 5 charts. Then you could do your experiment. Howz that? That would allow me to select people that an astrological chart say have very different personailities. The final verdict would be in the hands of the actual personalities themselves as to whether or not astrology described them accurately. (It's a decent test at that point. Since the charts are computer generated, there is no interpreter bias. Since the charts will be selected based on astrological criterion, again, there is no introduction of bias.) And I'll tell you what. If you'll send me like say 5 sets of birth data at a time, I'll let you know when I have 5 that are adequate for the experiment. That way, if you just happen to luck onto 5 completely different charts, you can avoid a lot of unnecessary leg work. there ya go Danny. Yes, I would be more than happy to provide the charts for that experiment. Anyone that has Solarfire can repeat the same experiment for themselves to make sure the chart interpretations weren't altered. (I just wish people wouldn't use their suspicion of my motives as a reason for not even trying to get started.) 050827 ... DannyH You're on. I'll start collecting. By the way I didn't mean to insult you by suggesting you would intentionally skew the results (please try not to be so touchy old boy) just that a reading which was not a genuine horoscope would be likely to be less convincing. I didn't realise they were being generated by computer. I apologise for any offence caused. That test does seem fair but too small a set of results for a skeptic like me. I'm glad we've been able to agree on a way to proceed with this test. I'll get you as many dates as I can find. I only hope I don't run out of volunteers before we get our sample. 050827 ... daf I think I might be able to arrange a 5 out of 5 result Danny, if you get us enough charts. (Oh and I prefer to receive things at gmail unless you think my penis is too small or too flaccid, in which case hotmail will do.) 050827 ... dafremen Now watch him email me at hotmail. F'n Danny. : ) 050827 ... daf Ok Danny. I think I have a way that we can get this going and get results MUCH more quickly. What IF, we combine the two ideas? What if you just keep getting me birthdates for as long as you need to get at least reasonably satisfying statistical information. For each birthdate, I will give you a real chart and charts with the same sun sign, but all of the other planets changed around. You tell me how many fakes you'll need to mix the real one in with. Then you record whether or not they were able to pick their real chart out of the lineup. That way, I can get you back the charts immediately, and every single volunteer is a useful candidate. What say? 050827 ... 42 usc 1983 "usc why don't you either put up or shut up? either do your own research or STFU." Okay, that's pretty stupid. I have to do my own research on astrology? I can never believe anyone else's research, eh? The studies that disprove the assertions of astrologers are just "random" research with no credibility? All of that is idiotic. You can't just summarily dismiss a study because it was done by someone else. And it's silly to think that your own research or mine would be more valid somehow. Have you done a quantitative study at the undergraduate or graduate level? I bet you haven't. And yes, if no credible studies prove the assertions of astrologers and many credible studies disprove them, then I would say it's pretty safe to disbelieve the claims of astrology. 050828 ... 666 ucla yo, 42 usc 1983, now you're just kicking a man when he's down. see: let_the_mayhem_begin if i interpret correctly, his wife left him. i could be wrong. ??? maybe her chart was more complicated than his six years of training could decifer. c'est la stars. 050828 ... 42 usc 1983 Okay, well I was responding to Realistic Optimist, the Blatherperson who used the dreaded STFU on me and abused the word "random." One more thing for those who like to shit on that "random" study without any justification other thanthe fact that I didn't personally design the study, collect the data. and feed the data into SPSS: The study proposed on this page is essentially the same, except less valid. Why the same? Cause it's a matching test. There have been a bunch of matching tests done. Like there was one where astrologers failed to determine, from the subjects' birth data, which subjects were intoverts and which were extroverts. (Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to reference yet another "random" study that I didn't personally do.) The study proposed on this page is less valid for several reasons. Writing what these reasons are will be a complete waste of my time, but what the hell, I'll do it anyway. First, there are fewer subjects to profile. Furthermore there is only one astrologer, so astrologers' results cannot be compared against each other for consistency. Also, the fact that this proposed study has the participants picking their profiles is problematic. What happens, if, say, a subject thinks that two or three profiles sound like him? What if he can't decide which suits him best? I'm guessing that the profiles will be written in such a way that they're relatively vague, anyway. The astrologer should have to do the matching based on a different personality profile compiled from responses to a series of questions administered by a disinterested third party, because it's less likely that way to receive false results or unusuable data. By the way, my background is not in quantitative research. I'm a law student. However, I've had enough experience with quantitative research to evaluate (at least as well as anyone else posting here, as far as I can tell) what is good research and what is bad research. You disagree? tell me why. Or better yet, don't tell me why. Instead, just don't give me anything to respond to so I can stop wasting my time on this shit. Oh and I love how doing my own research is "footwork" but reviewing the work of others is not. That's bullshit. Research is not done in a vaccuum. It is informed by the research of others. So for those who want to do their own research, check out some of the other research. It should help you design your own study. There, I'm done. 050828 ... DannyH Can we try the method we agreed on and see if we get enough. If we're finding it hard then we can introduce "fakes" but for now I'd like to keep it to genuine charts only if that's okay with you. I should have a batch for you in the next couple of days. And I have no doubt that your member is both proud and voluminous so gmail it shall be, big boy! 050829 ... dafremen Heheh Danny. I think that sounds fine. Let's keep it within your comfort zone, by all means. I'm gunna go back up and read what our esteemed legal eagle has to say. Seems the neither one of us can be BRIEF. (bahahaha oh that was punny.) 050829 ... daf Ok. I read the your points counselor. I'll admit that I scanned in places, but I'm fairly certain I understand where yer coming from. This once again is why it is SO important when communicating (and I'm not necessarily aiming this comment at you. I wouldn't presume to do such a thing) to read completely. What's being proposed HERE. And what has been proposed THROUGHOUT this discussion, (I use the term loosely, because it has broken down in places), is that we do something to see if we can, without rigging the results (which we most certainly are NOT doing), achieve high enough odds to make this something that might actually prove worthy of a more thorough investigation. (Which is what you are proposing.) Now I really think the whole system of dissecting a man's words and throwing them back into his face, is pretty innane. The whole Socratic whatever the hell. It's like monkeys throwing feces at one another to establish territory (read: breathing space for the ego.) Now we can say we're exploring when we do this debating thing, but man...you and I stopped exploring anything blathes and blathes ago. Now I'm repeating myself and yer repeating yerself and this whole thing reminds me of an intellectually souped-up episode of Jerry Springer. You know, where the participants try to shout over one another to score "dissin points" with the audience? Yes. You're right. Let's do a more thorough study. But let's not, as you also suggest, waste our time on that more thorough study, until we've demonstrated that it may be worthwhile. Let's do that by performing a small scale experiment to one skeptic's satisfaction. Then this one skeptic gets to judge for himself. That is one man giving this an opportunity, because his own experience really hasn't answered the question for him thoroughly. And if only one man convinces himself that astrology is worthwhile as a result of all of these hoops and ramps we jump over and through, well it will have been well worth it. That's one more face looking into the faces around it. Thats one less person going around randomly pissing people off for lack of understanding. So that's the idea here. Noone is proposing that we give a 100% absolute answer that is satisfactory to the scientific (or legal) establishment. Fair enough? 050829 ... daf : ) 10 points for anyone that gets it. 050829 ... 42 usc 1983 DannyH, please check out the other study. It's a better design, and not just because there are more participants. 050829 ... DannyH Thanks for the link 42 usc 1983. I'm sure their research will have been more thoroughly conducted than mine, I'm just having fun playing the scientist. I will be conducting the test with all the objectivity I can muster, however, otherwise there's no point. I think there are holes in the design of the skepsis test. To be fair to astrologists I think it is valid for them to complain that interpretations of personality can never be truly objective. I'm almost as skeptical about the claims of psychotherapists as I am of astrologers. That is why I intend to eliminate any third party interpretations in my experiment. My experiment is perfectly designed (apart from the small sample) to determine whether birthdates can generate charts which individuals can recognise as relating specifically to them. No more than that can be inferred from the results. 050829 ... 42 usc 1983 "I think it is valid for them to complain that interpretations of personality can never be truly objective." In the abstract, I guess it's valid. But what about that personality test lacked objectivity? Actually, the researchers in that study don't specify exactly how their personality profiles were compiled, so while in the abstract I suppose you can say that no personality test can ever be truly objective, it's sort of unfair to make any determination about the objectivity of the personality test used in that astrology study. But you know what, if you're really interested in doing a study, you can contact the researchers who did that study and I bet they'd provide you with more information, such as a list of the questions they used. Those people are generally more accessible than you'd think. Just tell them you'd like to replicate their study. Or not. All I'm saying is that some people on here are pretty flip about the research process and disrespectful toward the researchers who did that astrology study, all without any specific criticism. 050830 ... dafremen Well no, counselor, I'd say there are some pretty specific criticisms here. The first is that the experiment was designed ENTIRELY by a nonastrologer who then, in the ultimate act of irony, used astrologers to lend credibility to their experiment. The second criticism is that, for instance, Danny has alread sent me a dozen birthdates and after reviewing the charts, we found ONE whose chart met the above criterion. (Well actually even that chart didn't completely meet our criterion, but as long as the Sun and the Moon and one other major influence are in the same sign, that's gunna make a big difference.) I'm going to assume a bit. Certainly not for the purposes of arguing, simply for the purpose of demonstrating a point. I'm going to assume that you do NOT understand how such a thing as astrologers not being able to pick profiles from charts could work. I'll try again, to explain, but I'm afraid we'll just be spinning our wheels if you can't read and understand that even if I don't know a DAMNED thing about reality, I know about the delusional world known as astrology, and I know how it is "supposed" to work. There are specific archetypes and symbols associated with each sign. Likewise there are certain traits associated with the Elements (which really amount to symbols for Emotion, Thought, Energy/Motivation and Material Substance) and the Triplicities and the Planets..etc. (This is why one will continually fail to describe the process. It requires a friggin minor lesson in astrology each time. If we could just get a skeptic to learn the basic symbols...that's all. That's like 1st month astrology.) The Earth Element contains the signs of Capricorn, Virgo and Taurus. Now whereas each of these signs has specific concepts associated with them, still all three share the Earth Element traits: sharp physical senses, concern with the practical or material things in life, quieter verbally, attracted to the quiet places. This same thing is true of the other Elements as well. Cancer, Pisces and Scorpio will share the Water element traits (highly emotional natures, usually very empathetic and sensitive to the emotional content of a situation) Libra, Gemini, Aquarius will share Air sign traits (Freedom is highest priority, require intellectual stimulation more than other signs, communication, ideas..this is the realm of Air.) Aries, Sagittarius and Leo will share Fire sign traits. (Like to stir up things when its too quiet, very generous, natural thrillseekers, get mad quickly and expect others to forget immediately after its over, impulsive decisions without thought to the consequences.) These are the movers and shakers of the Zodiac. This is the primary difficulty facing these researchers AND the astrologers that they pick. How do you tell a Taurus with Capricorn Moon from a Capricorn with Taurus Moon? There are differences to be sure, but in a blind match up? Its EXTREMELY difficult. Like I said before, many are willing, but few are capable. What the idea at the top of this page will try to do, is isolate individuals who have most major influences in ONE sign. Then, if we do this right, we'll have Air, Water, Fire and Earth charts plus one other. The differences between the charts should then be glaringly obvious. Thats what is wrong with the study. That is what is wrong with the premise. It starts out assuming that something is as straightforward and easy as both money hungry astrologers and the misinformed public think it is. Astrology is NOT easy. It is one of the single most challenging things I have ever studied. And I actually made it through a Software Engineering book once without falling asleep (more than twice.) 050830 ... 42 usc 1983 Okay, it doesn't matter how complicated astrology is. If an astrologer can write up a profile or "chart" or whatever you want to call it based on a person's birth data, and that profile or chart can make verifiable statments about a person, then regardless of how complex the astrological process is, it can be tested by individuals who don't know the intricacies of astrology. It's true. I don't want to resort to analogies, but I feel that you just don't see a very obvious point. So here's an analogy: You're a doctor. You prescribe a pill that you claim cures cancer. I want to test the veracity of that claim. Do I have to know how the pill works to test the veracity of the claim? No. Organic chemistry and medicine are difficult topics, but as a researcher, I don't need to be a doctor or a pharmacist or a chemist to evaluate the veracity of your claims. Because the effectiveness of your pill speaks for itself. If the pill works, it works, and it doesn't really matter how from my perspective as the researcher. If cancer patients who are given the pill. And before the analogy police chimes in, let me say that I'm aware the above is not a perfect analogy, because there really is no such thing. I just used that example to illustrate what I think is a painfully obvious point: researchers don't need to know advanced astrology to verify or falsify astrology's claims, as long as such claims remain easily verifiable. And when a guy like Dafremen says, "give me your date, time, and place of birth and I'll write up a profile on you that will blow your mind," then yes, such claims are fairly easily verifiable and no researcher need know anything more about astrology to test those claims. In the matching test, the astrologer uses his arcane methods and the researcher verifies if they work. Simple as that. So no, Dafremen, your criticism is not even close to being specific or valid. Feel free to try again but I wish you'd just stop responding for a few days so that when I check back I won't have anything to rebut, and then I can be on my way and you can go back to preaching the virtues of astrology virtually uncontested. Honestly, though, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I talk to you. Take that as a compliment if you want. 050830 ... Dafremen (What the hell. I can play the ego game too. Pumping up alias...) What you've just done, is completely ignore what I wrote in order to repeat yourself. You realize that don't you? What you've said is, an astrologer should have been able to match a personality profile against a chart. And I'm telling you that is absurd. I won't debate the subject anymore, because as intellectual as you may be, you have no idea how incredibly stupid your whole last blathe was, and the reason you don't (this is the kicker) is for sheer ignorance of how something works. You need to know how mayflies breed in order to make sure you have the right temperatures to keep the larva from dying. That may have NOTHING to do with the premise yer setting out to prove. But it is the nature of the medium in which you are working. You have ways of keeping the mayflies from getting loose, and you have ways of keeping them from geting diseases that might affect the outcome of the experiment whatever it might happen to be. That's the funny thing. Your arguments, again and again amount to this: "Now hear this, I am about to justify why noone should have to know how something works in order to test it." No. You're wrong. I can just see this apple dumpling gang of f***tards patting each other on the back and saying, "Hey, if this thing works at all, it will work this way. Now how does it work? Does anyone know? 'Not me, I thought you knew.'" Are they brilliant men? Intellectually, certainly, many of them are. Are they dedicated men, why not. But what the f*** is the point in wasting your dedication on a pointless experiment? The experiment is pointless because they haven't taken the same precautions they normally do when trying to prove something, which just shows you how dedicated these guys really are to these experiments. Scientists are SO careful to exclude variables that MIGHT skew results, until there's something they don't give a f*** about proving or perhaps have a vested interest in disproving and then viola! They suddenly throw all of their rules out the window and start letting the armchair experts (which is most if not all of them when it comes to astrology) run the lab. I tend to get fed up with people that try to hide the fact that they're being dense being their intellect. So now let's get to YOU counselor. Man, I'm glad this isn't a court of law where smug twits like you have the "rules" to fall back on when reality won't work. Because here's the reality: In order to objectively test for some sort of validity to astrology, you must remove as much of the subjectivity as possible. (Don't tell me that doesn;t sound liek a good idea.) Scientists didn't think about that, because they were just so damned tickled at the idea of making astrologers look like fools. If you want to do it right, you get rid of as many of the middle men as possible. Science is ALWAYS trying to remove the human factor, except HERE when testing astrology. What is the human factor here? Well that's why it gets so damned confusing for everyone, PARTICULARLY for indolent (I better not use too many big words, I might misuse one and get pounced on by some 25 year old third grader), self assured gentlemen such as yourself who don't even care to look into it enough to understand what they are trying to prove. Astrologers and subjects right? Both are the human factor. Wrong. It is their interpretations that are the human factor in this experiment. But we cannot remove the subjects and still have an experiment. The astrologers? Well we COULD remove them (many of whom are so damned incompetent it makes my amateur ass look good), but we'd need to A) Make the charts somehow intelligible to the subjects. B) Make the results somehow intelligible to the researchers. All of these being met by Danny's proposal, (that we use a computer generated chart) we get to the most important point of all...which a researcher who knew just basic astrology and had a scientific mind would recognize right away...is this: C) "Cross pollination" of traits must be reduced to a minimum. (It can never be removed completely.) This third point is achieved by (now you scientists wil recognize this concept) REDUCING the number of variables. If you reduce the number of sign influences in each subjects chart, you make it less likely that the subject is going to read traits that sound similar to traits of their own in someone else's chart. (That is "cross pollination of traits." These are what scientists have so long mistaken for as being generalized statements that apply to anyone. (Ok leave the newspaper out of this. That IS generalized horse apple.) Yes, to some extent they do apply to "anyone." Because most people are a mix mosh of all influences. By reducing the additional influences, you could do the sort of blind grab that Danny wants to make work as an experiment.) Then, if you ARE doing a blind grab where subjects pick their own chart interpretation, you reduce the cross pollination of traits even further by only doing small groups. The odds dont change. But what does change is that we can find a subject with only Earth traits, one with only Water traits..etc. Then we have a description for each of them that has almost all of the cross pollination removed. This chart is Air..this subject is Air. This chart is Water..this subject is Water...etc. So much so, that if a properly supervised experiment of this sort were to fail (ha!), I would argue for the validity of the results myself. We removed the astrologers, and made sure that our subjects are more likely to encounter DIFFERING influences that will be immediately recognizable IF astrology has any validity. Now, so that you realize I know where yer coming from, and so that you know I am willing to come over to YOUR way of doing things: Nanny nanny boo boo, I am rubber you are glue. Thank you. 050831 ... 42 usc 1983 "What you've said is, an astrologer should have been able to match a personality profile against a chart." "And I'm telling you that is absurd." You do what you accuse me of. You repeat yourself, again speaking generally of removing subjectivity but still you show no specific way in which the study was subjective. Maybe you didn't read the study. Again, you are wrong that I need to understand the arcane methods of astrology in order to test astrology's verifiable claims. I won't attempt to make this point clearer to you, but for those interested, I outlined why this is in my previous post. And since you insist on making references to litigation, here's the question I would nail you with if I were to depose you: Did you or did you not claim that if any person on Blather sent you their birth data (time, place, and date of birth) that you could write up an accurate profile based on that data? No long-winded obfuscation. Did you make such claims. Yes or no. If no, what claims did you make? Also, keep the name-calling to a minimum, because I can play that game, too. 050831 ... The Heretic IN SIMPLE WORDS, WITH NO ASIDES, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT INFORMATION A NO CONTACT, DATE AND TIME OF BIRTH (BTW: IS GEOGRAPHY RELEVANT?) WOULD YIELD TO AN ASTROLOGER. WOULD ANOTHER ASTROLOGER PRODUCE EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS? IF SO WHAT VALUE DOES THE ASTROLOGER PROVIDE? IF NOT, WHY? IF THERE ARE INTERPRETIVE PRACTICES, CAN THEY BE TAUGHT? WHAT CRITERION ARE USED? CAN THEY BE QUANTIFIED? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RESULTS. I AM REFERRING TO CRITERION IN THE METHODOLOGY. IF CONTACT WITH THE SUBJECT PRODUCES BETTER OR MORE RICH RESULTS, THEN WHAT IS ADDED TO THE METHODOLOGY TO PRODUCE QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES? FROM THE OUTLINE OF MY INQUIRIES, YOU MAY DEDUCE THAT I AM SEEKING TO EXPOSE INCONSISTENCIES, NOT AS A LAWYER WOULD, BUT WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE ABOVE DIALOG MIGHT BE THAT YOU HAVE BOTH PROPOSED SKIPPING MOST OF THE PROCESS AND JUMPING TO THE FORMAL EXPERIMENT STAGE. YOU HAVE NOT AGREED ON A HYPOTHESIS, THEOREM ETC. THE STUDY PROVES NOTHING UNLESS YOU DEFINE YOUR GOALS. WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF IS IRRELEVANT IF YOU HAVE NOT DEFINED YOUR HYPOTHESIS. AT BEST YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT A PREDICTION OF OUTCOME IN AN ILL DEFINED EXPERIMENT WITH NO STATED HYPOTHESIS OR THEOREM. 050831 ... The Heretic BTW: REGARDING TACTICS, I THINK A TRUISM IS APROPOS HERE: WE HATE IN OTHERS WHAT WE DISLIKE IN OURSELVES. 050831 ... 42 usc 1983 I think the claim though is that an astrologer (Dafremen) can tell you about yourself (ie, he can write an accurate personality profile) based solely on birth data (time, place, date of birth). If that is the claim, it can be tested. It has been tested. 050831 ... stork daddy science is a discourse which by its very nature has certain standards which must be met before something can be said to have been proven scientifically. the law also has certain standards, but also has a judge who gives finality (even if it is at times arbitrary in some respects) to an argument. the truth of this argument would best be established by science. but boy i wish there was a judge to give it some finality, if nothing more than to not see it at the top of recent anymore. if i were the judge i guess my ruling would be that it's not worth arguing about. i'd throw in de minimis non curat lex to add pretentiousness to my ruling. 050831 ... 42 usc 1983 "the truth of this argument would best be established by science." No doubt. Just to get another opinion, Stork, do you think I'm correct that I don't need to know HOW astrology works to know IF it works, assuming that astrologers claim that they can write an accurate personality profile based solely on a subject's time, place, and date of birth? I think I'm completely right, but it's always possible that I'm missing something, especially since I refuse to spend too much time on this subject, which, as you mention, is kind of a trifle. By the way, I'm glad I was wrong about Fedor/CroCop. 050831 ... Dafremen Ok. First off. Am I the only one who feels a little bad for usc, the boy in the school yard looking for another peer to help him defend this position of his? (Cmon maaaan, that tired sh*t played out in grammar school. You started this fight. You brought the sneer to the table. Now be a man about it and stop looking to drag an intellectual he-man in to finish this nancy job you've made of things. Yes usc. Send me your REAL birth stats and I'll send you a computer generated chart that will really blow you away. I promise. However, could someone else find things in it that related to them? Yes. But they AREN'T general traits. It will fit you most closely, but there are a large percentage of people that will share these or those influences with you. That is what I am suggesting we remove. I HAVE demonstrated that the experiment can remove some of this factor of subjective interpretation on the part of the test subjects. We do this by making sure that we are dealing with test subjects whose personalities are polarized toward one or another "astrological tendency." If the so-called elemental influences are valid, the Water person will pick the Water sign description. The Earth sign will pick the Earth sign description, etc. If astrology's claims about the elemental influences is VALID, this will happen much more often than not. (My premise.) If astrology is just crap, with no basis to the elemental influences, then the subjects will pick the wrong description 3 times more frequently than the right description. (Your premise.) But you CANNOT go by the Sun alone. Because astrology has never said that the Sun sign was the do all tell all. What we need for this to work is a person who is VERY much Earth (according to astrology and their chart), and another who is very much Water. Etc. That is what the screening process does. It weeds out people who have their influences scattered throughout the elements, and tries to only include people who are focused mainly in one element or another. If it beats the odds (which it will blow the doors off of), then astrology is decribing something...just something that we can't easily quantify. If it doesn't beat the odds, well then I was duped and you may smirk with glee. P.S. Forget about Stork! I'll be on your side! Fine. You don't need to know how astrology works. (Hey...you think the other kids will kick our ass if we just stand here looking all pissed off and snotty like this?) 050831 ... Arwyn 42 usc 1983 You seem to be making a bit of a mistake. See, I'm Daffy's personal cheerleader... have been so for about... hmmm 6 years now? Sound about right daf? Anyways... What you don't seem to understand is that your impotent attempts to make daffy agree with you, are, as I said, impotent. Nothing's going to come of it... alright, maybe he'll get a cheap laugh at your attempts to suck the balls off of Stork... actually.. I'm fairly positive he is. So I'm gonna do you a favor. Instead of sitting here and admitting that you're attacking a subject you know nothing about, just let it die. Cause I'm a Leo... I tend to be loyal, and I've got the temper of a rapid donkey. If you're puzzled, that's okay... you'll just have to trust me on this one. Consider this your get out of jail free card. So, just drop the topic, leave daffy alone for a spell... get to know blather, and understand how this community works before you start believing that you're gonna change everything and be the most popular person here. Take care and back the fuck off. 050831 ... Dafremen She was right about the laughing part. I mean, hey, where did you plant that big ole smooch? Wow. And people don't see the animal behavior in this? This is friggin Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, intellectual edition. Oh and thanks muh nizzle. It's nice to find muh back in a secure sitchiation.. This punk ain't got sh**. Let's see if he's smart enough to realize that. (Ok so we've baited up the ol hook..now, when's that next strike?) EGO! Yummaaayy! 050831 ... stork daddy i think the general proposition that you don't need to understand how something works to have it proven that it works is a valid one. many things have a sort of black box function to them, but we are well aware when they don't do what they purport to do. however, i think to test the veracity of this particular claim, you have to understand exactly what is being claimed. as daf has gone on about, astrology suffers from being poorly defined by most "laypeople". to know whether there is any truth to the claims daf makes someone has to know at least enough about its methodology to know what to test. after all, if the claim is that under these specific conditions predictions about personality can be made, the only way to see if there are any correlations between those conditions and personality is to test those very conditions. of course it is dangerous to do such a test when other factors haven't been eliminated, or when it is the astrologer running the test. science has methods put in place specifically to eliminate bias, such as blind and double blind testing. a test that was tailored to test the specific claims daf is making, that was run in a way that kept the influence of extra variables minimalized would be ideal. and you as the designer of the test wouldn't have to know much about astrology to test it, but you'd at least have to know what they were claiming a correlation between. it could as daf suggests be more complicated than where one planet was. personally i am not convinced that astrology plays a role in our personalities, or if it does, i don't feel it is a very significant one. i have my father's gallows humor, not november gallows humor. my whole point is, that as long as daf isn't trying to get astrology taught in psychology classes at high schools (ala the intelligent design debate) he's welcome to try and convince people here to take what he sees as a useful and powerful tool that will help them understand better their lives. and of course, you're equally welcome to try and persuade him that his assertions are unfounded. i'm merely trying to persuade both of you that the argument isn't really going anywhere unless you both can find a test that utilizes methods that the other can agree on. science generally is that test as it is based on empiricism, or the reality we commonly share. we all generally agree when we see things in reality correlated and so are willing to infer causation. sorry that was so long-winded. and even i, who had a personal bet with a friend taking fedor, was amazed at how methodical and dominant fedor was in that fight. cro-cop, for his part though, scored more damage on fedor than any other opponent to date. i just wonder what's next for both of them. 050831 ... stork daddy also i think it goes without saying that any test would have to be tailored to limit other possible explanations for the astrologer's predictive and descriptive abilities. 050831 ... daf So enough of this insanity. You have no idea what you are doing, and I am starting to feel like a big ass for taking advantage of that fact. Like I told you in your post about my grip on reality, this game is two layers deeper than you believe it to be. There is what you are saying, with all of the pomp and finery of your intellect behind it, and then there is what you are doing, which is posturing like an animal. You posture intellectually for one of the folowing reasons: 1. Establish your dominance 2. Establish a pecking order 3. Amuse yourself 4. Remove unwanted ideas through intimidation 5. To invite like minded types to "play" in a spirited debate. Every single one of those behaviors is animal in nature. I know. I have a pitbull and he exhibits very similar traits. You might argue and argue, because you cannot see what is right before your eyes..but it is there. Finally, there is what you are feeling, and how it affects both what you are doing and what you are saying. You seem to be very afraid that people won't be impressed by the legal career you've chosen. Why is that? Who are you trying to make proud? It's not just yourself. No. That look to peers tells me. You don't do things just for you. You're too dependent upon the accolades and praise of others. Now I will tell you this. You are a very fine intellect, and your grasp of the law is fine. However, your knowledge of yourself is in severe need of your attentions. Please take that to heart and know that I would never judge you, only help you, or ask you to take a step back if need be. You'll make a fine lawyer someday. : ) 050831 ... daf And if you'd like to meet in the lab, I have a great idea for a test that takes into account the principles of astrology. The cool part is, you don't have to learn how astrology works, because I already know. I've got yer back, man...seriously. Now let's try this test, it should be interesting either way. I'll bet you a beer! Er wait...no I don't drink..how about a five spot? You got a fiver? 050831 ... stork daddy this really shouldn't be about who is smarter or any other form of name-calling. it should be about who is right by a standard we can all agree on. i agree with a lot of the points usc makes, and i agree a lot with your saying that your point isn't being heard. perhaps my last posts were a little abstract. here is more clearly what i meant.... daf is saying that astrology can, at least as far as is verifiable by the test proposed, predict four sets of personality traits based on four sets of birth circumstances. you don't have to understand whether these sets are earth signs or air signs or what in tarnations that means in order to know whether his hypothesis is correct...you only need to know enough to provide him the data that would prove his point. you need to know, specifically, that he is asking for birthdates in a large enough sample to satisfy you and that fall into at least four categories. for it to eliminate other factors, you'd want to get a cross-section of cultures and climates to make sure these traits aren't affected by having a birthday in the summer or one close to christmas. as for your last post daf, i don't know if you are referring to me or usc, or whether you think we're the same person. i can only give you my word that we're not. and since you're the computer guy maybe you can check the ip address...i don't know. either way, i'll say that sometimes i'm not very impressed with law, and sometimes i feel it's a very important pursuit. i do feel the need to make some people in my life happy, but i wouldn't necessarily call that or what i'm trying to do right now animal. your observations, while not always meaningful to me, are always appreciated as stemming from virtuous motivations. be careful about absolutist thinking though. we don't always know enough to make proclamations about another person, and that's largely one of the reasons i'm distrustful of something that tries to make proclamations about a person based on such a narrow aspect of them (especially one that is not readily observable as material to their personality). however, i do agree that there is much about myself i need to learn, and while i have my own methods, if it'd mean a lot to you i'd be willing to supply you with birthdays (not my own as your analysis could be based on something other than astrology) so that i could see for myself the merit of what you're espousing. after all, i have little to lose from it, and, according to you, much to gain. either way so much of arguing on the internet is just people practicing their ability at argumentation more than it is an actual attempt to learn anything. i note that i remain skeptical that there is much to learn here, however, and the burden of proof is on you. and drinking is something we can all agree on. next you're going to tell me i drink because i'm a scorpio, when everyone knows it's because i'm irish! 050831 ... stork daddy and also, if you can't tell by my various names, i don't see anything wrong with being an animal. 050831 ... 42 usc 1983 My two favorite moments of that fight were (1) when Fedor high-kicked CroCop and (2) when Mirko attempted that triangle and got about 7 hammer-fists to the face before letting go. Next I'd like to see Fedor fight Werdum, Sergei, Barnett, Ricco, Hunt, or (in fantasy land) Arlovski. I guess Fedor's hand needs to heal first, though, so he might not be fighting for a while. Maybe in the meantime he can fight Tank one-handed. As for Mirko, I'd like to see rematches with Nogueira, Barnett, and Hunt. I'd also like to see him fight Sergei. Of course, down the line we'll have to have Mirko/Fedor II. Can't wait. Oh, and also, Dafremen, I just realized that you're totally right about astrology. 050901 ... stork daddy i personally liked when cro cop walked hurriedly away as if he'd seen a ghost. although fedor having his nose broken, becoming tentative for a moment, and then marching onward after remembering what had happened to all of the other fighters who gave mirko space, was also pretty cool. and i guess i'd like fedor's next fight to be against kharitonov, since it would probably be the most significant in terms of defining his legacy. i also can't wait for the rematch, cro-cop will only improve. 050901 ... daf And no, stork, I wasn't referring to you. I was actually talking to usc. But I can see that the swelling has gone down now, and we're all discussing things like rational human beings again. (You were the "intellectual he-man" of the earlier blathe.) I may be right, and I may not be, usc. (Regardless of your intention for saying so.) What stork said is ABSOLUTELY my own feeling as well. Let's find out. And let's not discard if there's reasonable evidence that something was overlooked. I believe I know what was causing the piss poor results in these experiments. If the experiment that I am proposing fails, I will have SERIOUS reservations about whether I might have been taken in by some sort of chicanery. Seriously. The number one thing I set out to do, when I began this crazy adventure 6 years ago, was to either verify that there is something to astrology, or to prove that there isn't. I've run across some very interesting phenomena as a result of that desire to know. The problem was, I didn't know how to make those phenomena demosntrable and repeatable, because we're dealing with friggin people here. It's VERY complex. Very, oh so very complex whether you're dealing with psychology, medicine, sales, politics or astrology...it's just so very hard. Anyhow, we've manage to find one suitable candidate out of 12 potential test subjects so far. THAT is how badly the odds were stacked against astrology in these tests that reseachers performed. Glad to meet you. My name's roger dafremen. My friends call me daf. 050901 ... dafremen Oh and for the record. The last time stork and I got into it, blather's hard drives lost about 14 gigs of space. We are not allowed to get into it anymore around here, by order of the blather_gods. (Hercules and f***ing Achilles and sh**.) 050901 ... 42 usc 1983 I thought that was intended for Stork Daddy as well, because I believe you wrote something about my legal knowledge being fine but my self knowledge being poor, and I thought that would be a ridiculous statement if it were about me since you don't know anything about me. I still think astrology is junk and a waste of time to disprove further than credible researchers and common sense already have. Also, please know that I do not trust your proposed study because you have a vested interest in the results. Although you sometimes claim that you are not totally convinced of astrology's claims, your quick transitions into what I would call, well, let's say "vigorous advocacy" of astrology tend to suggest otherwise. Anyway, I'd feel better about the results of your test if someone both capable and willing kept you in check. Unfortunately, I am not willing to invest my time into such a project. Also, I'll be honest here: if your study proved astrology's claims, my presumption will be that you cheated or lucked out with some "type II" error. Of course, presumptions are subject to rebuttal, but in this case the burden of proof should be very high. And to Arwyn, although you didn't say anything interesting, you spoke to me specifically, so here's my response: Sorry, your six year seniority on this Website doesn't impress me. Nor do your cheap and boring insults. If you think you contribute more to Blather by being Dafremen's "rabid donkey cheerleader" and writing about how you want to be fucked by Jack Black, well, that's your opinion. But your opinion sucks. So take care and back the fuck off right back atcha. Now we can be friends. 050901 ... daxle I put my chart in my blather album 050901 ... dafremen The easiest thing in the do right now would be to cry for you man. Seriously. Take the blathe. It's yours. Take them all. I'm done here for awhile. I suddenly remembered why I decided to leave in the first place. If you go to a friend's house and a dog comes up to greet you by pissing on your leg, then you try to stop it, and if thats not possible. You leave. I love the people here more than the place anyhow. Danny, you have my email. Hey there dax. Hope it worked out for you. 050901 ... estarocks aww...dont take it like that daf usc is just an overworked student who isn't gettin enough lovin i for one am glad u r back so please stay awhile! 050901 ... 42 usc 1983 Right about overworked student, wrong about the lovin'. Jesus, Dafremen, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by posting on your Blather page. I'll leave now, since you seem pretty territorial and this Website is obviously much more important to you than it is to me. But remember, just a few posts ago you were writing about how you were baiting me and reeling me in, about how you were manipulating this whole discussion and snickering at me from behind your keyboard. And now here you are deeply wounded and making a dramatic departure from Blather. You know, I hear lithium is good for bipolar disorder. Again, sorry for pissing on your leg, except that I'm not sorry because you made me a goddamned pissing dog in that analogy. Just kidding. I'm not very tactful over the Interweb. Anyway, if nothing else you're an interesting person and there must be a reason why so many Blather people jump in to defend you. Thanks for helping me unwind. 050902 ... estarocks i dont think u hurt his feelings cuz i've never seen daf run from ne thing. this probably isn't worth his time, that's all. 050902 ... stork daddy now with whom will i discuss the indisputable awesomeness of the upcoming lightweight grand prix? i guess it's back to mmatv...now there's an example of subhuman reasoning and incivility! 050902 ... stork daddy it's too bad too. reasonable people on the internet are too often voices in the wilderness. 050902 ... 42 usc 1983 You're right, estarocks, I'm not even worth my own time. But then, if Dafremen left because this/I am not worth his time, then your first post seems to make little sense. If you truly thought he was leaving because this wasn't worthwhile, I think you would have said something like, "although this page isn't worth your precious time, there are plenty of things on Blather that are," rather than what you did say, which was essentially, "don't take it so hard, usc is just an overworked, undersexed student." So why the need to marginalize me if what motivated Dafremen's departure was boredom? But as for the LW GP, I'm looking forward to seeing Gomi, Yves, and Little Evil get through the first round. Then things should get really interesting. And regarding the welterweight tournament, is it wrong that what I'm most interested in is seeing how far Baroni can advance? I never really liked him in UFC but it's amusing to see him play the cocky American heel for the Japanese audience, especially since Pride brought him in essentially to be squashed by Minowa. Can't help but root for the underdog, especially when he struts to the ring in a red sequined robe and knocks out guys to whom he's supposed to lose. On a related note [ostensibly washed up UFC guy brought in ostensibly to job to a Japanese guy] were you also a bit sad to see Tank lose the way he did? I was, although I can't say that I was surprised. Tank lacks the conditioning and overall skill of a modern MMA fighter, but I'd say what hurts him more than these deficiencies is his apparent lack of "heart," as they call it. He just seems to give up at a certain point. When Yoshida hit him standing, Tank shot in for the single leg, even though there was no way Tank could beat Yoshida on the ground. Tank did the same when he fought Rizzo. 050904 ... The Heretic WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE A BLACK BOX CAN NOT BE KNOWN WITHOUT LOOKING INSIDE OF IT. SCIENTIFIC METHOD NEITHER STARTS NOR ENDS WITH DESIGNING A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT. IT MUST BE CONNECTED TO A THEOREM WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSARY CONNECTION IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE PROOF. DROPPING A ROCK DOES NOT PROVE GRAVITY, EVEN IF WE DO IT OVER AND OVER. ONE COULD INFER ALL SORTS OF OSTENSIBLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS FROM SUCH LIMITED SCOPE, MUCH OF WHICH WOULD BE WRONG. 050907 ... emmi but even if a person has sun, moon, venus, mercury, mars and ascendant in the same sign, it doesn't mean they will relate to that sign... there is so much more to it, like the houses the planets are in, the aspects they make, and some of these things may be felt more than others. say a person with majority of planets in virgo has a pluto in scorpio in their first house? i actually know this person... and she relates most to the scorpio characteristics. it's all about the individual....contrary to popular belief that astrology is all about generalisations... 050907 ... daf i don't think anyone's arguing with you. i think that what we're trying to do, is RAISE the probability that the charts will match. And we've got to come up with a mechanism simple enough, that even a person NOT versed in astrology could use it. Noone, particularly not me, is suggesting that we will ensure that all people in our study will 100% match the traits of their Sun sign. You make some good points, i hope you see ours? Good luck to you. Thanks for having the faith to look into it. 050907 ... emmi true true, i was just saying... this test just makes it a little less general than pure sun sign astrology, but nowhere near as complex as it is supposed to be...maybe astrology should really be left to those who know more about it and are openminded enough to want to learn more than just sun signs... skeptics will be skeptics :) 050907 what's it to you? who go blather from