Weening a friend off a little superstition... but how?

[komencanto]

OK, here´s the situation. I have a Spanish teacher here in Spain who is a lovely women, in her early thirties and we get on well. Overall intelligent nice person.
However, yesterday she made some comment about how she was Capricornio and is stubborn and strongwilled (because of it?). At first I thought she was joking, but it turns out she really does believe that the horoscope determines your personality (not always) but in some cases. It always shocks me how many people fall for this.... anyway...

The reason is that she has met someone who she got on really well with and had a similar personality and when she asked her if she was capricornio it turns out that.... yes, she was. Damn.
It also doesn´t help that I´m a bit of a straight for the throat "typical capricornio" (at least according to her) myself =)

I explained to her that this was simply an illusion and that all serious studies have revealed that nobody can find any relationship between birthdate or any aspect of a personality. But of course, hard evidence is never enough to combat a simply explainable personal anecdote :rolleyes: so she just repeats her own experience.

Where does one go from here? I´m thinking of getting this: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=32 and translating it into Spanish for her (good practice anyway) and seeing what her reaction is.

But what do you guys reckon I should do?

*Cue trumpets*

Komencanto...... ridding the world of stupidity, one belief at a time! :roll:

Seriously though, whats the best course of action?

[Yahweh]

First, "Are you a Capricorn" is standard line, its a little like "What's your sign" but has a slightly more personal twinge to it.

This might be helpful...

From Randi's Commentary on August 29, 2003 (http://www.randi.org/jr/082903.html):

Reader Kris Vasquez Davantes offers us this account of his daughter Ana's heady introduction to becoming an "expert."

<blockquote>I read this week's commentary about the Enchanted Forest Intuitive Camp. While I have nothing that outrageous to report, I thought you might be interested in the way my daughter's elementary school introduces its students to research. They use something called an "Expert Fair," and the idea is that every child can choose a topic that interests them and become an expert on it. The child then presents their topic in a science-fair type of display. Overall, I have no quarrel with it, except that there are no topics out of bounds, and "facts" from any source are considered legitimate. So my daughter and her friend ended up next to each other with displays on astrology. Her friend had "facts" like "If you're an Aries you're stubborn" and "Astrology was invented before 1965." My daughter, after much discussion in our household, conducted a test at the fair. She pasted 12 adjectives onto cards on her display board and asked people to choose the one they thought described them best, then lift the card to see if they had identified their "sign." She asked each person to write down what they chose and what their birthdate was. She learned two things. First, of more than 80 people who passed her booth, only 5 managed to select their "sign" — so we had a good discussion about laws of probability. Second, most of the adults could not understand why she was doing this, even after she explained it to them. Sigh.

Enclosed is a photo of Ana with her "Certificate of Expertise."</blockquote>

Thanks, Kris. I'm happy to see that you're concerned enough about the standards employed by the school. I wish more parents took that much interest.

"Stubborn and Strongwilled" sounds more like "Taurus" to me anyhow...

[komencanto]

Yeah, but that don´t work for some reason =/

[TLN]

Originally posted by komencanto
Yeah, but that don´t work for some reason =/

Not surprising. I wish I knew who said this first, but I heard it here. It was the statement that you cannot rationally argue out that which was not rationally argued in.

It's not like your friend put all the world's belief systems on a table, evaluated them, studied them, then concluded "yes, this one seems the most reasonable and scientific, I'll go with it." She picked Astrology for the same reasons anyone picks any belief: it comforts her and makes her feel connected to the universe.

I had a friend who was mad for John Edward. Over a very long evening, I showed her the tricks of cold reading, reminded her that television was the land of illusion and editing, and talked a great deal about skepticism. She no longer believes in Edward; but that Sylvia Browne, she's amazing!

Folks who need these kinds of security blankets, well, need these kinds of security blankets. I hate to sound cynical, but you probably can't snatch the blanket away and even if you did, she'd only resent you.

[T'ai Chi]

Tell her you have some horiscopes, and you want her to tell you which are for what sign.

Because horoscopes have titles and clues in them (ie. 'You'll have good luck with Capricorn.', so that horoscope probably isn't for a Capricorn!), just retype them without those titles and clues.

See how she does. If horoscopes are accurate, she should be able to get them, riiigghhhtt?

[Clancie]

You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence? :eek:

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too). After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.

Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.

Anyway....since the zodiac groups personality characteristics together in four different dominant ways, there's a good chance that someone willl feel they "match up" with their sign (probably any two of the four would be a VERY good fit--so, at least six zodiac signs). Add in moon signs, rising signs, etc. (and, of course, belief and wanting it to fit) and you improve your chances immeasurably of thinking, "this really works!".

I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."

Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.

edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.

[Zep]

Find as many horoscopes as you can for her from different sources but for the same day, eg. Capricorn for 1 November 2003. Put them all side-by-side and have her go through them. Chances are none will same the same thing, and some will even be contradictory.

Now do the same for a few other signs on the same day. Same result?

You could also sift through all the horoscopes for one day, hide their signs so she can't tell, and try to get her to match them up by their content alone. Then reveal the signs for each one - signs all over the place?

You can do these same exercises with movie stars, famous people, your family, etc, etc. Matching the stars to the stars... :)

Of course, there's none so blind as those that will not see...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence? :eek:

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too). After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.

Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.

Anyway....since the zodiac groups personality characteristics together in four different dominant ways, there's a good chance that someone willl feel they "match up" with their sign (probably any two of the four would be a VERY good fit--so, at least six zodiac signs). Add in moon signs, rising signs, etc. (and, of course, belief and wanting it to fit) and you improve your chances immeasurably of thinking, "this really works!".

I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."

Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.

edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.

Do you have any evidence for these claims, Clancie? Please provide it.

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Do you have any evidence for these claims, Clancie? Please provide it.
Its not a "claim" requiring "evidence", Bill. Its a non-paranormal interpretation of a social practice. (Didn't you ever leave the science lab? Social science and humanities offer theories based on real-life observations all the time).

If you read any astrology book in the light of what I posted, you'll see what -my- theory is. Whether you feel, at that point, that it has merit or not, is totally up to you. Agree or disagree...I couldn't care less. :con2: )

[hgc]

Originally posted by Clancie
...

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too).That's backwards. It's a way of categorizing based on which of 12 sections of the calendar year people are born into (and more complicated formulations of birthdate/time). And then matching those to a pre-set notion of personality traits. After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.What evidence matches personality traits to earth/fire/water/air?Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.Jung's archteypes had no basis in science in Jung's day, and they still don't.I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."This sounds like an interesting idea. Are you saying they should use one type of nonsense (earth/air/fire/water) to readjust their thinking about another type of nonsense (astrology)?Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.What could be more fun than that? How about looking at the universe in all its wonder as it actually is, and thinking about the mystery of what is yet unknown, and where you fit into it all. I think it's a great alternative to adopting notions that have no basis in reality.

[Clancie]

Posted by hgc

How about looking at the universe in all its wonder as it actually is, and thinking about the mystery of what is yet unknown, and where you fit into it all. I think it's a great alternative to adopting notions that have no basis in reality.
:rolleyes:

How about understanding what I wrote? :rolleyes:

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Clancie
...Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.[I
But worthless.
Playing with personality profiles gleaned from astrology statements in the newspaper led Forer to show that people will accept such generalized statements as accurate. This is also called the Barnum Effect.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Clancie

:rolleyes:

How about understanding what I wrote? :rolleyes:

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....) Before your eyes roll out of your head, you might want to explain how earth/air/fire/water categorizations are useful in describing personality traits. I did actually read that in what you said.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hgc
Before your eyes roll out of your head, you might want to explain how earth/air/fire/water categorizations are useful in describing personality traits. I did actually read that in what you said.

As did I.

Cheers,

[renata]

komencanto, if your friend has access to the internet, have her take the reverse astrology test.
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htm

Of course, there is a 1/12 chance it could get her right, and reinforce her belief. Good luck :)

[Flame]

Renata that's hilarious!

is she (edit HE - guess I think most wishy washy nutcases are female) for real???

apparently Leo was my probable sign (wrong) and the least probable one was capricorn (which I am).

Here's the bit about if it's wrong:

If you feel the results of this form are incorrect, you must be mistaken as to your actual birth date, or maybe it has something to do with your rising sign. In such a case I'd suggest you contact a professional astrologer, or I could take another stab at it if the price is right ;-].

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

:rolleyes:

How about understanding what I wrote? :rolleyes:

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....)
Looking at real life human characteristics and analyzing our similiarties is fine. However, since there's no real evidences that I know of, of astrology providing a basis for these types of analysis, why should we use it at all? Analyze our characteristics and similiarities based on something scientific and proven, something astrology is not. I think that's the basis of hgc's question. How can astrology be used to look at human characteristics, even for fun, when there's no proof it has any basis in identifying categories of said characteristics.

[voidx]

As for the question at hand, get her to take one of the test, which will invariably lead to identifying her sign wrong. Then ask her why this is possible. Question her on the process of astrology and how it accounts for this being wrong. I find this a much more useful tactic. Without being overbearing, just firmly question her knowledge of astrology, of the loopholes or logical holes in it. She won't be able to answer them adequately. She may not convert on the spot and praise your wisdom, but more than likely she'll start to question. Initially probably to read up on the process so she can kill your points, but if she's intelligent at all, it might just start to become more obvious that there are holes in the process, the more she looks into it.

It's the classic case of them finding one example where it works and asking you to disprove it. I find it better, and more logical to turn it around. Even ******, inconsistent process's work sometimes, so turn it around and ask her to explain why and how it fails.

[renata]

Originally posted by Flame
Renata that's hilarious!

is she (edit HE - guess I think most wishy washy nutcases are female) for real???

apparently Leo was my probable sign (wrong) and the least probable one was capricorn (which I am).

Here's the bit about if it's wrong:

If you feel the results of this form are incorrect, you must be mistaken as to your actual birth date, or maybe it has something to do with your rising sign. In such a case I'd suggest you contact a professional astrologer, or I could take another stab at it if the price is right ;-].
It is pretty good, but I am apparently wrong about 1/12 chance. For one thing, upon further reflection, the test is not random, he person who composed it did take the most common characteristics of each sign. If someone knows their sign, they are more likely to be correct. Furthermore, according to this page
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/results.htm
from the results he collected, out of 187 people who took the test, 50 got correct results, or 26.74%. His comments

One thing is evident: After completing the self assessment myself, and finding that I'm almost a Virgo and a Pisces as well, I'd bet, instead of the 1 in 12 natural odds, it's more like a 1 in 4 chance that a person would think a sun sign was accurate, considering that a number of them could describe the same person. Also, as a test of my inclusion of both positive and negative characteristics (I kept them balanced for each sign but it's very subjective), and as a test of how we view ourselves, we can look at the average scores of all our visitors. It seems no one wants to be a Cancer. Also note, from visitor #8 to 32 we have an abundance of people who score as skeptical Virgos. Could that be because they all came in on the day this site received a link from James Randi's weekly commentary? It seems web surfing habits may do a much better job of predicting personality traits than sun signs. I think I'm on to something; now just to make it mystical (and marketable)....


Just so you know, I was one of those visitors, and scored a skeptical Virgo...and I am a Pisces! :D

So there is the possibility she might get it right, 1/4 people do. You must be prepared that will reinforce her belief- and then have a Plan B- perhaps have a few other people take the test, take the test herself in front of her. Show her the results of other people who took the test.

[voidx]

Aries Mar 21 to April 19 45.5
Taurus April 20 to May 20 60
Gemini May 21 to June 21 58
Cancer June 22 to July 22 54.5
Leo July 23 to Aug 22 44
Virgo Aug 23 to Sep 22 72
Libra Sep 23 to Oct 22 60.45
Scorpio Oct 23 to Nov 21 58
Sagittarius Nov 22 to Dec 21 50
Capricorn Dec 22 to Jan 19 49
Aquarius Jan 20 to Feb 18 62
Pisces Feb 19 to Mar 20 61

My results from the reverse astrology test. I am actually an Aries, the second lowest score and consequently most likely not "me". It says I'm most likely a Virgo, whoops. Heh maybe the should have included my birthdate in the calculation :D.

Edited to add: And 72 out of 100 is the greatest accuracy margin they can give me? Surely the stars are more accurate than that? What the hell kind of calculation are they running anyway? Seems to be I could randomly generate numbers in a similar test and come up with the same quality of results, so what good is this crap?

[Tompet]

edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.

Clancie, Astrology IS harmful! Just check on astrology forums, such as astrologyzone.com. Some of the forum members literally stay in limbo until the newest horoscope comes out.

Also, have a look at the traditional meanings of fixed stars and other astrological factors, which anyone can readily look up on the web. Nothing but gloom and doom, early death if in conjunction with certain planets, etc. If someone really believes in this stuff, it could frighten the crap out of them.

Out of curiosity, I studied celebrity aspects, which are quite useful as everything which befalls a celebrity is public. Of course, there is no consistency (beyond chance) between planetary placement and events. This is explained away by astrologers "because there are other factors in the chart, blah, blah, blah". That is precisely why astrology cannot be a science, nothing is repeatable. If planet x in house y would cause a specific event in every case, it would be testable. But according to astrologers, there are so many variables that nothing is written in stone. So what good is astrology to anyone? It serves to frighten and intimidate and suck money out of the pockets of the gullible.

Okay, off the soapbox, sorry for the long reply. :D

[Martin]

Originally posted by renata
komencanto, if your friend has access to the internet, have her take the reverse astrology test.
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htmApparently, it's 83% sure that I'm a Capricorn. Impressive.

Of course, it's 83% sure that I'm all the other signs, too :D

[CFLarsen]

I think a few things need to be clarified.

[LIST=1]
There is no agreed upon compatibility chart on which we can weigh the different signs against each other. Any comparison between two signs is both invalid and arbitrary.

I am not a Capricorn. I don't know where Clancie got this notion from, but it completely destroys her own argument. Perhaps she could tell what compatibility chart she used, so we can see if we are really very compatible after all.

The signs vary in time span, depending on what zodiac you use. You can actually be two signs at the same time.

Apart from the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, there is also the Chinese zodiac, which is based on not four, but five "personality characteristics" (or "elements", if you want to be ped..precise): Wood, fire, earth, metal and water. The Chinese zodiac does not span 1/12 of a year, but a whole (lunar) year, and uses quite different symbols. This also destroys Clancie's argument - unless she can explain why either the Chinese are wrong (risking to sound rather racist), or that metal and wood suddenly can enter the list of personality characteristics, and air can disappear (without screwing up everything).

Astrology is based on very old, outdated, overly simplified and downright wrong ideas of how people "are". When you read the works on astrology, even the current ones, you will find references to physical features connected to different signs, and therefore how people "are" - an idea that brings back memories of racism and genocide.

You will also find that astrology - claimed to be old - today does not contain the more "yucky" practices, such as reading animal entrails. Astrology in ancient times was never the watered-down pocket-psychology practice we see today.

Astrologers disagree violently on whose astrology is the right one - among themselves. Outwardly, they give the impression that all systems "work". They have absolutly no basis for any such claim.

Astrology is very harmful. People have suffered greatly from the false predictions of astrologers. not just in historic times, but also today. Basing your decisions on astrology can only lead to disaster, since you are at the mercy of charlatans. You also buy into ideas that you can judge people's characters by their looks.
[/LIST=1]

Some articles that might be of interest:

Sun Sign (in)Compatibility (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/sunsigncomp.htm)
By Claus Larsen
One of the more amusing aspects of an astrologer's life is to predict who will be suitable as a partner for the client. This can be done in seconds: Merely compare the two persons' astrological signs and you have the answer. But do astrologers agree which signs are compatible?

The Effect of The Man In The Moon on Undergraduates (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/maninthemoon.htm)
By Charlie Cotterman
Is it really true that things start go..well, loony...around Full Moon? Charlie Cotterman did an investigation of his very own...

Gravity it ain't... (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/gravity.htm)
By Claus Larsen
Astrologers have a hard time explaining what really is making astrology "work". Most claim it is gravity, based on the old analogy of the Moon causing the tides: If the Moon can cause the waters on Earth to move, then why not the water in our bodies?

Did Robert Zoller Predict 9-11? (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/zoller911.htm)
By Claus Larsen
Robert Zoller is the self-proclaimed "world's leading proponent of Western Predictive Astrology also known as Medieval Astrology." Among his feats, he claims to have predicted the events on 9-11 no less than twelve months in advance. Well, he didn't.

Readings from a chatroom (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrologyreadings.htm)
By Claus Larsen
How three astrologers were exposed as their prejudices overcame their skills...

Time is not on Astrology's side (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrotime.htm)
By Claus Larsen
One thing immediately strikes the student of Astrology: The predominant feature is confusion. No consensus seems to be achievable on just how Astrology works. Sure, it's the planets that "influence" us humans here on Earth, but that's about where the agreement ends. What sign was Mozart?

Lion in the sky - or...? (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/leo-distance.htm)
By Claus Larsen
Are people born in the sign of Leo really lion-ized? Are Virgos virginal and pure? Is the Zodiac universal? Why can't E.T. be a Leo? Read more about the outrageous silliness of Astrology.

Guess the Celebrity! (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/celebrity.htm)
By Claus Larsen
When astrologers claim horoscopes work, they often point to celebrities, lay out a chart for them and interpret their (already known) lives as proof that astrology works. But what if nobody knows who the charted person is, yet is still part of our "common conciousness"? Can an astrologer tell something decisive about an unknown person?

Free Horoscope! (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/freehoroscope.htm)
By Claus Larsen
Astrologers usually charge quite a lot for their services. Not so here. You can get your own personal horoscope for free, no charge whatsoever!

[voidx]

Hmmmm and then there's this statement on the reverse astology quiz page:

From http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htm :
If you feel the results of this form are incorrect, you must be mistaken as to your actual birth date, or maybe it has something to do with your rising sign. In such a case I'd suggest you contact a professional astrologer, or I could take another stab at it if the price is right ;-].
Heh hear that? I wasn't born on April 5th afterall. I'm going to go bitch out my mother directly, how dare she lie to me all these years! Lucky for me there are generous people on this earth willing to clear up my mothers lies for the right price.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not a Capricorn. I don't know where Clancie got this notion from, but it completely destroys her own argument. Perhaps she could tell what compatibility chart she used, so we can see if we are really very compatible after all.



Very interesting post, Claus. I will just quote this little but, since Clancie has you on ignore, and I think it is important she answers why she thought you were the Capricorn. Maybe that misconception is the root of all your clashes ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

I think it is important she answers why she thought you were the Capricorn.
This came up once before at TVTalk and someone told me that his birthday was listed here as Jan. 1.

I just rechecked it on his member page and it says, "Birthday January 1 "

Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

This came up once before at TVTalk and someone told me that his birthday was listed here as Jan. 1.

I just rechecked it on his member page and it says, "Birthday January 1 "

Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

What sign am I, Clancie?

Cheers,

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

What sign am I, Clancie?
Sure, I'll help you with this, Bill. There are really only three steps....

Step #1: Find your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #2: Look at the birth date on your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #3: Ignoring the year, find where that date would fall on the list that voidx posted above.

(And, if you still find that you need help, please don't hesitate to ask! :p )

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

Do you know how astrology is supposed to work?

When you're born, the sun is in front of a particular constellation. When astrology was created, the constellations were mapped and then sun's path through the sky was mapped; so by checking a particular date you could tell which constellation the sun was in front of at the time of your birth, giving your "sign."

The problem is no one has bothered to update the dates since the system was created thousands of years ago and all the constellations have moved! Someone born on January 1st is actually not a Capricorn because the sun was no where near the constellation of Capricorn at the time!

No one seems to care.

[Clancie]

TLN,

Like the other die hards here, you're totally and completely missing my point (which wouldn't matter so much, except that your post was addressed to me, despite the fact it has no bearing on anything that I think about astrology).

But...carry on....

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie

Sure, I'll help you with this, Bill. There are really only three steps....

Step #1: Find your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #2: Look at the birth date on your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #3: Ignoring the year, find where that date would fall on the list that voidx posted above.

(And, if you still find that you need help, please don't hesitate to ask! :p )

Wrong, as the system of astrology gives the wrong dates for the position of the sun and constellations. Get a star chart that overlays the path of the sun and you'll see what I mean. The dates given in the newspapers and such were accurate about 3000 years ago.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Like the other die hards here, you're totally and completely missing my point (which wouldn't matter so much, except that your post was addressed to me, despite the fact it has no bearing on anything that I think about astrology).

But...carry on....

Originally posted by Clancie
Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

I merely pointed out that this statement is provably false. But like other die hards here, you care not for the distinction between fact and fiction.

But, carry on...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
This came up once before at TVTalk and someone told me that his birthday was listed here as Jan. 1.

I just rechecked it on his member page and it says, "Birthday January 1 "

Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

Good to see you are losing your "willpower"! It would also be nice if you could admit that you might not have been very clear in your post, instead of criticizing all others for misunderstanding you.

Just write more clearly, and clarify, if your posts aren't that understandable. It could be your fault, you know.

As for the date, I just picked the first choice. I always choose Jan 1st, when I am required to give my birthday. I do this because I got tired from listening to astrologers explaining why I was such a nasty skeptic.

See why in this article: Readings from a chatroom. (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrologyreadings.htm)

Besides, me having the same sign as Jesus does provide a few problems for them.... :)

So, I am not a Capricorn. Now, please explain why we are still incompatible (if that is still your stance). What compatibility chart did you use? What signs are incompatible with your own? Which are compatible?

Could be very interesting, couldn't it?

Have you read this article: Time is not on Astrology's side (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrotime.htm)? It explains why you are wrong about how to determine the astrological sign.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Step #3: Ignoring the year, find where that date would fall on the list that voidx posted above.

(And, if you still find that you need help, please don't hesitate to ask! :p )

Funny. The Chinese zodiac I'm looking at says to ignore the date and pay strict attention to the year. Sheesh, and, ya' know, now we can't even trust the reported birthdates! Hoo-boy, and the base astrological charts are off, too!

So what was that you were saying about the clash between your sign and Claus' sign?

Cheers,

[Martin]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Could be very interesting, couldn't it?Yeah. You two should definitely get together.

[Thanz]

Good lord. Let's just ask Clancie what colour the sky is then mock her for whatever answer she posts.

Don't you guys have anything better to do than hyper-analyze everything she writes?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Good lord. Let's just ask Clancie what colour the sky is then mock her for whatever answer she posts.

This is not what we do. If Clancie said "blue" we'd leave well enough alone. The problem is Clancie says "pink".

We don't "mock" her at all (at least, I don't think I do), and it's not about "whatever answer she posts"; just the false ones. Surely you don't have a problem with us correcting a provably false statement.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

So what was that you were saying about the clash between your sign and Claus' sign?
I'm very familiar with Chinese astrology, Bill, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it? :rolleyes:

And the remark you're referring to was only in jest. That's why it had :eek: followed by "...Seriously,....."

Get it now? :rolleyes:
Posted by Thanz

Good lord. Let's just ask Clancie what colour the sky is then mock her for whatever answer she posts.

Thanks, Thanz. I wouldn't mind the constant "picking away" as much, if they (CFL, TLN, Bill) at least made the effort to understand my point rather than jump in and attack me for things I don't even claim (nor, if they could read, would any of them think I'm a believer in astrology).

TLN, maybe I'm saying "the sky's blue" but you insist on hearing, "the sky's pink". But...no, that possibility is outside your mindset, isn't it?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, Thanz. I wouldn't mind the constant "picking away" as much, if they (CFL, TLN, Bill) at least made the effort to understand my point rather than jump in and attack me for things I don't even claim (nor, if they could read, would any of them think I'm a believer in astrology).

TLN, maybe I'm saying "the sky's blue" but you insist on hearing, "the sky's pink". But...no, that possibility is outside your mindset, isn't it?

Let's see...

I never claimed you're a believer in Astrology. Get it?

I don't "insist on hearing" anything, it's loud and clear. Observe:

Originally posted by Clancie
Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

Wrong. Provably wrong. Get it?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN
Surely you don't have a problem with us correcting a provably false statement.
But what provably false statement are you correcting here? The thing about the compatibility between Clancie and Claus was a joke. It really doesn't matter if Claus is really a capricorn or if the commonly referred to dates for astrology are correct. It was just a joke, based on the ongoing animosity between them and coincidences in the predicting behaviour of astrology. Sheesh.

Really, what is the point of Bill asking Clancie what his sign is?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Funny. The Chinese zodiac I'm looking at says to ignore the date and pay strict attention to the year. Sheesh, and, ya' know, now we can't even trust the reported birthdates! Hoo-boy, and the base astrological charts are off, too!

So what was that you were saying about the clash between your sign and Claus' sign?

Cheers,

Clancie is way off here (too, one might add). Chinese astrology is based on twelve signs, all animals:

Dog, Pig, Rooster, Dragon, Ox, Sheep, Horse, Rabbit, Snake, Monkey, Rat and Tiger.

Each sign has different personality traits, of course.

It is based on the lunar year, not our "normal" calendar year. E.g., you can be a Rat when born on one day in one 12-year cycle, but a Tiger, when born on the same day, but in another 12-year cycle.

This makes it a very complicated procedure of conceiving children. Lots of thought and planning go into when it is best for the woman to give birth. Calculate 9 months back, and you get a lot of Chinese couples who do - all of a sudden - not want to go for dimsum. :D

We can smile at this, of course, but most Chinese take this very seriously.

It is interesting to note that the 12 Chinese signs do not in any way correspond with the (two!) zodiac(s!) we know. Yet, astrologers and believers in astrology have no problem claiming that no conflict exist.

It is also interesting to note that Clancie once commented on John Edward getting a "Chinese" name, without her being able to tell whether it was Cantonese, Mandarin or any of the hundreds of dialects found in China. It is a very important point, since spoken Cantonese is different - sometimes very - from Mandarin. And since JE got his hit by hearing it, it is interesting that she never questioned what dialect it was.

Originally posted by Martin
Yeah. You two should definitely get together.

You may note that it was Clancie who expressed the...desire...to see if we would make a fit. Not me. :)

Originally posted by Clancie
I wouldn't mind the constant "picking away" as much, if they (CFL, TLN, Bill) at least made the effort to understand my point rather than jump in and attack me for things I don't even claim

Why do you care what I understand, if you don't even read what I post??

And why is it always other people who misunderstands you, but never yourself who have problems expressing yourself clearly?

Get over yourself. Really.

Originally posted by Clancie
(nor, if they could read, would any of them think I'm a believer in astrology).

I, for one, have not claimed that you believed in astrology. I don't think anyone has. However, you bring up astrological issues, and it is pointed out that you are wrong about them. Stop building strawmen and address the issues.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
But what provably false statement are you correcting here?

Originally posted by Clancie
Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

[Thanz]

TLN -

What is the point of your "corrections"? Clancie used the date provided by Claus in his profile, and the commonly accepted dates of the astrological signs (posted by voidx), which are used in newspapers and astrology books all over. And, according to that information, Claus is a Capricorn.

Your correction is that everyone is using the wrong dates for astrological signs? How does this make any difference whatsoever, other than to show that you know way too much about astrology?

It was a joke, nothing more. What's next? Do I need evidence that the chicken crossed the road?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
What is the point of your "corrections"? Clancie used the date provided by Claus in his profile, and the commonly accepted dates of the astrological signs (posted by voidx), which are used in newspapers and astrology books all over. And, according to that information, Claus is a Capricorn.

Information which is incorrect.

Originally posted by Thanz
Your correction is that everyone is using the wrong dates for astrological signs? How does this make any difference whatsoever, other than to show that you know way too much about astrology?

I'm sorry. I'll try to read less and be dumber to make you happy.

[voidx]

I must agree a bit here with Thanz. Clancie made a joke statement, using a set of dates with coinciding astrological signs (right, or wrong whatever) and then took what CFL had listed as his birthday to conclude he was a Capricorn. Now whether or not the signs match up with the dates is pretty much a seperate debate. But Clancie can't be faulted for assuming CFL's birthday was Jan 1 as listed in his profile, when even by his own admission, that is not his real birthday. Argue the validity of the matched up signs and dates for astrology if you like, but I say let the CFL is Capricorn comment die. To clarify when's your birthday CFL? Mine is April 5th 1976. That way Clancie won't misrepresent you in future.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Information which is incorrect.
Well, information that is debateable. I don't really care to debate the origins of astrology as I'm really not that interested, but you can find many, many astrology books and self-professed astrologers that disagree with your position on the dates and which would agree that someone who is born on January 1 is indeed a "Capricorn".

As for whether Jan. 1 is Claus' birthday, Clancie qulaified her statement by saying "Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate..", which of course he is.

I'm sorry. I'll try to read less and be dumber to make you happy.
How about not chasing certain posters for using commonly accepted dates for astrology TO MAKE A JOKE? What purpose does this serve at all?

Read as much and be as smart as you like. If your purpose was simply to inform, you would have done it in a less confromtational manner. But of course, since you have classified Clancie as a woo-woo, she somehow doesn't seem to get basic courtesy from you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Clancie used the date provided by Claus in his profile, and the commonly accepted dates of the astrological signs (posted by voidx), which are used in newspapers and astrology books all over. And, according to that information, Claus is a Capricorn.

Listen to me, very carefully. There is no such thing as "commonly accepted dates of the astrological signs". Don't take my word for it, do your own research!

I did. That is why I am so confident when I say this.

Originally posted by Thanz
Your correction is that everyone is using the wrong dates for astrological signs? How does this make any difference whatsoever, other than to show that you know way too much about astrology?

Have you read the article "Time is not on Astrology's side"? Do so. Then come back and tell TLN that he is wrong.

Originally posted by Thanz
It was a joke, nothing more. What's next? Do I need evidence that the chicken crossed the road?

You need to do some footwork of your own. For a change.

Originally posted by Thanz
But of course, since you have classified Clancie as a woo-woo, she somehow doesn't seem to get basic courtesy from you.

She is a woowoo, for cryin' out loud! She believes that psychics can talk to dead people!

Sheeesh........

Originally posted by voidx
To clarify when's your birthday CFL? Mine is April 5th 1976. That way Clancie won't misrepresent you in future.

I gave my reasons why I do not disclose my birthday.

Clancie does not need a reason for misrepresenting me, in the past, present or future.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

As for whether Jan. 1 is Claus' birthday, Clancie qulaified her statement by saying "Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate..", which of course he is.


How about not chasing certain posters for using commonly accepted dates for astrology TO MAKE A JOKE? What purpose does this serve at all?


First of all, Thanz, can I protest your new avatar! I was trying to figure out who this new guy was...I identify people by their avatars, not their nicks, and I liked the old one.

Second of all, I thought Clancie thought CLause was a Capricorn because forum software defaults most of us into 12/31/1969, or something like that. However, her qualification did not occur until after Claus said he was not a Capricorn, and her first statement
You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence?:eek: did not qualify it either.

Now, to me personally, it did not appear to be a joke, but I do not place my perception of what she said over how she says she meant it. In other words if Clancie says it was a joke, with nothing behind it, even though my personal impression was different, I think it is only fair to give her the benefit of the doubt. I am sure Clancie would do the same in a similar situation.

Now, I want to know what sign (under common Western astrology date something or other) Claus is, just to see the compatibility...;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Listen to me, very carefully. There is no such thing as "commonly accepted dates of the astrological signs". Don't take my word for it, do your own research!

I did. That is why I am so confident when I say this.
Listen to me very carefully. Pick up any mainstream newspaper in North America that has a horoscope section. They follow what you refer to as "Tropical" in your little article. According to that scale, the one most commonly referred to, January 1 is a Capricorn.

Further, it simpley doesn't matter. It was a joke. Get it? A joke. IMO, there is no way either you or TLN would have been this adversarial about this stupid point if the joke had been made by a "skeptic".

Have you read the article "Time is not on Astrology's side"? Do so. Then come back and tell TLN that he is wrong.
I read your little article. Nice posting of references, by the way. Almost all written by you. At least when steve posts a bunch of references they are written by other people.

Anyway, I wasn't telling TLN he is wrong. In fact, with your little article, you are (in a way). According to the "Tropical" astrology chart, Jan 1 is Capricorn. Your article points out that there is confusion in the astrological world about what sign people really are. So, when Clancie makes an assertion based on the Tropical chart, it is correct according to that chart. TLN cannot say that it is "provably wrong" if there is such confusion in the astrological world. That is why I said it was "debateable".

Who is closer to being correct? Is it "provably wrong" or "debateable"?

She is a woowoo, for cryin' out loud! She believes that psychics can talk to dead people!

Sheeesh........
Not surprising that you discount everything someone says based on whatever classification you have come up with for them. Talking to the dead makes what difference, exactly, to the joke that Clancie was telling?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by renata

First of all, Thanz, can I protest your new avatar! I was trying to figure out who this new guy was...I identify people by their avatars, not their nicks, and I liked the old one.
Do you dislike the new one, or will it just take some getting used to? I was getting a little tired of the old one, I wasn't sure if people could see what it really was or if they even cared about what it is. I considered posting a thread asking for avatar opinions, but it seemed a bit attention-whorish.

Second of all, I thought Clancie thought CLause was a Capricorn because forum software defaults most of us into 12/31/1969, or something like that. However, her qualification did not occur until after Claus said he was not a Capricorn, and her first statement
did not qualify it either.
Qualify it how? As a joke?

Now, to me personally, it did not appear to be a joke, but I do not place my perception of what she said over how she says she meant it. In other words if Clancie says it was a joke, with nothing behind it, even though my personal impression was different, I think it is only fair to give her the benefit of the doubt. I am sure Clancie would do the same in a similar situation.
It read as a joke to me. I even chuckled a little. She started the next paragraph with "Seriously," which indicated to me that what came before was not serious.

Now, I want to know what sign (under common Western astrology date something or other) Claus is, just to see the compatibility...;)
That would be interesting. Imagine the shock and horror throughout the world if it turned out that they were the same sign!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Listen to me very carefully. Pick up any mainstream newspaper in North America that has a horoscope section. They follow what you refer to as "Tropical" in your little article. According to that scale, the one most commonly referred to, January 1 is a Capricorn.

Okay, your turn to listen carefully: the sun is not in Capricorn on January 1st. The newspapers are wrong. The newspapers, astrologers, and believers can think anything they wish. They're wrong.

Originally posted by Thanz
Further, it simpley doesn't matter. It was a joke. Get it?

Oh, this is a joke alright. Bye, bye...

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

Do you dislike the new one, or will it just take some getting used to? I was getting a little tired of the old one, I wasn't sure if people could see what it really was or if they even cared about what it is. I considered posting a thread asking for avatar opinions, but it seemed a bit attention-whorish.

No, I don't dislike it at all! I was just reading your posts and wondering- who the hell is this newbie?? The nerve, jumping into a discussion like this!


Qualify it how? As a joke?

Qualify as in unless Claus is lying about his birthday.


It read as a joke to me. I even chuckled a little. She started the next paragraph with "Seriously," which indicated to me that what came before was not serious.

It is a matter of perception, I guess :)


That would be interesting. Imagine the shock and horror throughout the world if it turned out that they were the same sign!

Or, even worse- the signs that are deemed to be romantically compatible!!:eek: :eek: If that were true, I do not know how they could possibly ever quarrel again...

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by renata
komencanto, if your friend has access to the internet, have her take the reverse astrology test.
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htm

Of course, there is a 1/12 chance it could get her right, and reinforce her belief. Good luck :)

I just took that; I got an 81.5/100 in my astrological sign. Apparently I'm one of those 1/12 . . . :rolleyes:

[voidx]

The way I saw it, Clancie saw CFL's birthday listed as Jan 1st or whatever. Clancie lined that up with the sign of Capricorn (whether or not this is accruate) and so then stated as much with her comment. Now ok yes according to the links by TLN and CFL the signs don't match up with those dates anymore, so ok fair enough, something Clancie didn't know about. Clancie also assumed CFL's birthday was as listed, and I would assume she'd have little reason to assume otherwise. This was also wrong as it turns out so again ok fine, she was in error. But not in a fashion that I believe everyone should run around taking her to task as hard as they have for it. I doubt she did it intentionally.

As for not putting your actual birthday in there, I can see if you just don't care if your profile is correct, but to state you have specific reasons for not including your real birthday seems odd to me. I'm not sure what you're giving away by telling people your birthday. But I suppose that's your choice. Anyway I don't really think there's much left to discuss on this specific issue, so I for one will be moving on.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Listen to me very carefully. Pick up any mainstream newspaper in North America that has a horoscope section. They follow what you refer to as "Tropical" in your little article. According to that scale, the one most commonly referred to, January 1 is a Capricorn.

I don't care what is in the newspaper! Do you really think that the newpaper horoscopes depict a "true" astrological prediction? Ask any astrologer, and he/she will tell you that it is not "true" astrology.

Do some homework, just for once!

Originally posted by Thanz
Further, it simpley doesn't matter. It was a joke. Get it? A joke. IMO, there is no way either you or TLN would have been this adversarial about this stupid point if the joke had been made by a "skeptic".

No. It was only a "joke", when Clancie realized she had made a mistake. Where is the funny smiley?

Originally posted by Thanz
I read your little article. Nice posting of references, by the way. Almost all written by you. At least when steve posts a bunch of references they are written by other people.

Nice avoiding the key issue: Was I wrong? Is it not true, that there are differences in how a zodiac is charted?

Originally posted by Thanz
Anyway, I wasn't telling TLN he is wrong. In fact, with your little article, you are (in a way). According to the "Tropical" astrology chart, Jan 1 is Capricorn. Your article points out that there is confusion in the astrological world about what sign people really are. So, when Clancie makes an assertion based on the Tropical chart, it is correct according to that chart. TLN cannot say that it is "provably wrong" if there is such confusion in the astrological world. That is why I said it was "debateable".

Whoa! Point out to me where Clancie points to the tropical zodiac. Or did you merely assume that she was?

Originally posted by Thanz
Who is closer to being correct? Is it "provably wrong" or "debateable"?

Anything is debatable, however not all points are equally right. But, yes, it is provably wrong that Jan 1st is Capricorn.

What's your next move? That it is not wrong?

Originally posted by Thanz
Not surprising that you discount everything someone says based on whatever classification you have come up with for them. Talking to the dead makes what difference, exactly, to the joke that Clancie was telling?

Stop obfuscating. Do you consider a belief in psychics talking to dead people "woowoo" or not?

[jj]

Originally posted by Clancie
You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence? :eek:

Sorry, clancie, but you first need to show that there is any statistical meaning to Gemini vs. Capricorn in terms of compatability.

Until then you can't say "got it right" because you haven't shown that there is anything "right" to "get".
edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.
So, how about the RayGun administration? :mad:

[epepke]

Frankly, I think you should either have sex with her or not and then move on.

It's generally a waste of time to try to persuade people against these kinds of one-size-fits-all taxonomies.

I once had a friend who said, "I don't believe in astrology, but then again, I'm a Leo, and Leos tend to be skeptical." I laughed. Then he told me that I was the first person he'd ever talked to who got the joke.

[Martin]

Originally posted by epepke
Frankly, I think you should either have sex with her or not and then move onYou are talking to Claus, right?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm very familiar with Chinese astrology, Bill, but that wasn't the point of this thread, was it? :rolleyes:

And the remark you're referring to was only in jest. That's why it had :eek: followed by "...Seriously,....."

Get it now? :rolleyes:

So, of course, your familiarity with Chinese astrology puts your claim about ignoring the year into problematic territory, doesn't it. So, Clancie, how do you resolve this problem? Which is it, does the year matter or doesn't it?

Get it now? :rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Martin
You are talking to Claus, right?

Yup. For me, "not" sounds real good.

[thaiboxerken]

I'd start with asking questions about astrology:

What determines your sign?

Does geographical location matter?

Do time-zones matter?

If time-zones matter and location doesn't... isn't that contradictory?

If time-zones don't matter, what about the international date line?

Is the moon a planet or a satellite?

Do you believe in free will?

If the stars determine personalities, what's that say about free will?

How do the stars determine personalities?

Do you realize that we can still see the light of a dead star?

Is astrology a science?

If it's science, why is there no peer review?

Why isn't astrology considered science by anyone but astrologists?

Ever heard of the JREF challenge?

Are you stupid?

If you aren't stupid, why do you believe in stupid crap like astrology?

Would you like to buy my magic pebble?

[Thanz]

This will be my last post on this incredibly inane point. I agree with what voidx has said.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I don't care what is in the newspaper! Do you really think that the newpaper horoscopes depict a "true" astrological prediction? Ask any astrologer, and he/she will tell you that it is not "true" astrology.
Dude, I am simply pointing out to you that there are commonly understood dates for the signs of the zodiac. They are the dates used by most people in North America, the ones in the newspaper. And most people (including Clancie) do not put any stock in the predictive powers of Astrology. They just enjoy reading the horroscope once in a while, and musing on things like sign compatibility. That, and cheesy pick up lines.

No. It was only a "joke", when Clancie realized she had made a mistake. Where is the funny smiley?
Dude, I can't help it if you have no sense of humour and a huge disability when it comes to interpreting anything that Clancie writes. There was the eek smiley, and the next sentence started with "Seriously,".

Nice avoiding the key issue: Was I wrong? Is it not true, that there are differences in how a zodiac is charted?
I seriously do not care. Maybe you can get your own special on radio station WGAF.

[B][QUOTE]Whoa! Point out to me where Clancie points to the tropical zodiac. Or did you merely assume that she was?
I assumed that she was, because they are the commonly referred to dates in the newspapers and at places like astrology.com.

Anything is debatable, however not all points are equally right. But, yes, it is provably wrong that Jan 1st is Capricorn.
Look up just a little bit. You said:"Is it not true, that there are differences in how a zodiac is charted?" Yes, there appear to be differences. And, according to one method of charting, Jan 1st is Capricorn.

What's your next move? That it is not wrong?According to one method it is not wrong. That method may now be out of date, but it is the one most commonly referred to in North America and the one that most people recognize.

Stop obfuscating. Do you consider a belief in psychics talking to dead people "woowoo" or not?
I try not to label people as "woowoo". Once you labe someone as such, it seems all to easy to just write off whatever they say because of who said it. Your attitude towards Clancie on topics other than JE is telling.

BillHoyt constantly likes to say that he is a bouncer for a strip club. Whether this is true or not is immaterial - his real point is that it shouldn't matter who says it, it is what is said that is important. Although I do not think that BillHoyt lives up to this ideal, I agree with the basic sentiment.

You, BillHoyt and TLN all jumped on Clancie for inaccuracies in a joke. I would have thought it was funny if she simply made up the zodiac signs and they had no correlation to either you or Claus. It was a riff on how coincidences happen with things like astrology.

Bah. I'm done trying to explain this to you. You just go on believing whatever you want.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if Clancie can tell me what the astrologers say about MY sign.

Ignore Thanz, he's just a woo-woo.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
You, BillHoyt and TLN all jumped on Clancie for inaccuracies in a joke.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is "jumping":
"Do you have any evidence for these claims, Clancie? Please provide it."




:rolleyes:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Ignore Thanz, he's just a woo-woo.
Thanks, TBK. I don't know if you could have made my point any more succinctly.

I am curious - why, exactly, do you consider me to be a "woo-woo"?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Thanz

Thanks, TBK. I don't know if you could have made my point any more succinctly.

I am curious - why, exactly, do you consider me to be a "woo-woo"?

Because, even though you haven't admitted to believing in weird things, you certainly jump all over skeptics in here for any reason. This leads me to think that you actually believe in the paranormal.

I recall you believe in a god as well.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Because, even though you haven't admitted to believing in weird things, you certainly jump all over skeptics in here for any reason. This leads me to think that you actually believe in the paranormal.
Not only have I not admitted to believing in weird things, I have actually stated my disbelief in certain specific paranormal things (like JE talking to the dead).

I only "jump all over skeptics" when I think that they are debating dishonestly or engaging in other questionable behaviour. Attacking Clancie at every turn does nothing to foster debate or the free exchange of ideas. If not blindly following what other skeptics say leads you to think I believe in paranormal things despite my explicit statements to the contrary, I question your logical reasoning skills.

I recall you believe in a god as well.
A-ha! Quite true. However, I freely admit that this belief is not something that is the result of a reasoned examination of evidence - rather, it is a matter of faith. I know that there is no proof of God, and I have read quite a few of the attempted proofs by many philosophers. None of them really do the trick.

You will note, however, that I do not try to convert anyone here, nor do I insult anyone for being an athiest. I have made a personal choice to believe. You (and most of the people here) have made a personal choice not to believe. I do not think that this personal choice makes me a "woo-woo", nor do I think that my opinions on other topics should be ignored because of it.

[thaiboxerken]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thanz

I only "jump all over skeptics" when I think that they are debating dishonestly or engaging in other questionable behaviour. Attacking Clancie at every turn does nothing to foster debate or the free exchange of ideas. If not blindly following what other skeptics say leads you to think I believe in paranormal things despite my explicit statements to the contrary, I question your logical reasoning skills.

No, your feverent attacks on CFL and others lead me to think that you believe in weird things. You also see dishonesty where there is none.


A-ha! Quite true. However, I freely admit that this belief is not something that is the result of a reasoned examination of evidence - rather, it is a matter of faith.

A woo-woo reason to believe in anything.

I know that there is no proof of God, and I have read quite a few of the attempted proofs by many philosophers. None of them really do the trick.

But you still believe in something weird without evidence. Yep, a woo-woo you are.


You will note, however, that I do not try to convert anyone here, nor do I insult anyone for being an athiest. I have made a personal choice to believe. You (and most of the people here) have made a personal choice not to believe.

Beliefs are not choices, but convictions. I cannot simply choose to believe in a god or not. I'd like to believe in "afterlife", but there just isn't anything to convince me that there is one. I can't simply choose to believe in Santa Clause. Can you turn off your belief in a god? I doubt it. Can you choose to believe in god every other day only?

I do not think that this personal choice makes me a "woo-woo", nor do I think that my opinions on other topics should be ignored because of it.

You believe in weird things, you are a woo-woo.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
I only "jump all over skeptics" when I think that they are debating dishonestly or engaging in other questionable behaviour.
Which apparently you believe occurs very frequently. Hmm.
Attacking Clancie at every turn does nothing to foster debate or the free exchange of ideas.
Nobody is attacking Clancie. We are challenging her attempts to insert specious ideas into the conversation. However softly she peddles them, they are still specious, and they must be confronted.

Cheers,

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Nobody is attacking Clancie.

Well, I do. I'm done trying to deprogram the likes of Clancie. Her beliefs are so ingrained that there is no hope to bring her back into reality.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Well, I do. I'm done trying to deprogram the likes of Clancie. Her beliefs are so ingrained that there is no hope to bring her back into reality.

OK, I stand corrected. Personally, I don't care about Clancie. I care more about the many, silent JREF members here who might be persuaded by the pap. Both the stridently vocal woos, and the "I'm a skeptic" woos are dangerous. I think skeptics make a great mistake whenever they don't challenge the camel the minute the nose is in the tent door.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Which apparently you believe occurs very frequently. Hmm.
I do believe it happens often from certain posters, yourself included. But that group of posters is relatively small. For example, renata is just as skeptical as anyone else here regarding the paranormal. Yet I do not think that I have ever had a problem with the way renata presents her arguments or ideas, or in her behaviour to other posters - be they skeptic or believer.

Nobody is attacking Clancie. We are challenging her attempts to insert specious ideas into the conversation. However softly she peddles them, they are still specious, and they must be confronted.
Bull, and immediately refuted by TBK. As for inserting specious ideas into the converstation, I do not think that making a compatibility joke about Claus is any such thing, and it certainly did not need to be confronted. It was nothing but badgering for the sake of it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
I do believe it happens often from certain posters, yourself included. But that group of posters is relatively small. For example, renata is just as skeptical as anyone else here regarding the paranormal. Yet I do not think that I have ever had a problem with the way renata presents her arguments or ideas, or in her behaviour to other posters - be they skeptic or believer.
If you come here spouting nonsense, you can expect to be challenged. Vigorously. Randi has made that abundantly clear.

Bull, and immediately refuted by TBK. As for inserting specious ideas into the converstation, I do not think that making a compatibility joke about Claus is any such thing, and it certainly did not need to be confronted. It was nothing but badgering for the sake of it.
Yes, TBK corrected me and I accepted that correction. I am not interested in attacking Clancie. These themes of unfairness, badgering, attack, personality have been repeated so frequently by the woo brigade here as to have become hackneyed. This forum is about rational thinking. Declaring oneself "a skeptic" is not a baptism here. One is not thereby cleansed. Couching woo in suggestive language is equally ineffective cleansing.

Now to my points vis-a-vis Clancie:

o first, I first gave a very short post which simply asked for her to back up claims. This, of course, was horribly violent badgering which should have immediately resulted in a call to the police. I'm surprised you did not do your civic duty here.

o second, I then added a fake birthdate to my profile, and asked Clancie to comment on my sign. My point here was to point out the foolishness of assuming all information posted on the web is trustworthy. Of course, this was a horribly dishonest stunt, and both I and Claus should be reported. We have both now confessed our sins and sincerely request your absowootion.

o now, of course, we're being treated to the howls of badgering and attack and dishonesty and, holy molasses, here comes a kitchen sink. Wow. What are you, five years old? This is an educational forum. You are engaging in a dialogue with skeptics. Some of us take a gentle and genteel approach. So of us take no prisoners. Get used to it. If you didn't know it before, be fully cognizant of it going forward: disguising woo in soft peddled, "oh astrology is just fun" terms will get you no further in the tent than that camel's nose.

Now, Clancie has made some claims here. To wit:


"Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too)."

Implicit here is a claim that the sign/personality type mapping has validity. But since the signs are tied to birth dates, implicit here also is the secondary claim that there is a correlation between birth date and personality type.

She supports this notion at several points in her post. Most notably, here:

"Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun."

Psychological insight here means an understanding of your own psychology. Based on what? The signs. Which are base on what? Birthdate. If she is not making this claim, then one needs to wonder what her confusion is about the meaning of gaining insight.

Next, Clancie steps into contradictory statements. First is:
"Step #2: Look at the birth date on your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #3: Ignoring the year, find where that date would fall on the list that voidx posted above."

So, she says astrology says the year has no meaning. But then I raise Chinese astrology, where year is paramount. Clancie says she knows that, but now has to resolve the contradiction for us, or explain why her preferred astrology is correct and Chinese astrology is wrong.

We're still waiting for the evidence or explanations on all of the above. Care to take a shot at these yourself?

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


You believe in weird things, you are a woo-woo.
This may shock you, TBK, but your opinion does not mean a lot to me. I do not think highly of your reasoning skills nor do I find you to be a pleasant person.

Plus, the roof of your car is ugly. :p

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, insulting the car was not funny at all.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ok, insulting the car was not funny at all.
Hey, the car is fine. The roof is goofy. I sentence you to driving a yugo for a week for commiting such an atrocity. :p

[Thanz]

Mr. Hoyt -

Nice rant. Feel better now? Feel like a big man skeptic, crushing all those who you feel are "woo-woos"?

What continues to elude you is that it is possible to vigoursly defend a position without acting like an a-hole. Renata makes good reasoned arguments, but always remains polite. You seem to lack this particular skill.

As to the astrology related portion of your post, I reread Clancie's post. I think that all she was saying was that the traits identified and descibed in astrology are interesting from a personality traits identification perspective. I don't think she made any claims about the validity of astrology at all. Further, Chinese astrology is irrelevant to her post, which was in reply to a post about the regular zodiac (capricorn, aries, etc.).

You seem too intent on proving others to be wrong to actually engage in a reasoned discussion of something.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt -

Nice rant. Feel better now? Feel like a big man skeptic, crushing all those who you feel are "woo-woos"?

What continues to elude you is that it is possible to vigoursly defend a position without acting like an a-hole. Renata makes good reasoned arguments, but always remains polite. You seem to lack this particular skill.

As to the astrology related portion of your post, I reread Clancie's post. I think that all she was saying was that the traits identified and descibed in astrology are interesting from a personality traits identification perspective. I don't think she made any claims about the validity of astrology at all. Further, Chinese astrology is irrelevant to her post, which was in reply to a post about the regular zodiac (capricorn, aries, etc.).

You seem too intent on proving others to be wrong to actually engage in a reasoned discussion of something.

Let's try again, Thanz:

o Clancie claims that there are 12 personality types. Please provide evidence that she does not make this claim.

o Clancie claims that these 12 descriptions provide "psychological insight". Insight implies new knowledge. This implies that there is a way to index these 12 descriptions to determine which profile fits. Otherwise, there is no way to use them to gain insight. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

o Since there are 12, since they are different and since she claims available "insight," and, therefore, new knowledge, she is claiming that the usual indexing method of birth date is a reliable index into these insightful descriptions. She is, therefore, claiming a validity of the claimed correspondence between birth date and personality. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

You have taken it upon yourself, Thanz, to make these claims. Please provide us evidence supporting your position that Clancie did not, in fact, make them.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You have taken it upon yourself, Thanz, to make these claims. Please provide us evidence supporting your position that Clancie did not, in fact, make them.

Mr. Hoyt, I am not going to play your games. I made no claims. I simply provided you with my interpretation of her post.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Since you don't like "rants", let's boil this down to nice, easily read bullet point questions (I see that BillHoyt also has gotten this brilliant idea):


Today is October, 24th. What sign are we in? And why?

Do you consider a statement correct, if people/newspapers refer to it as correct, even though it is provably wrong?

Why do you ignore Clancie's paragraph about the zodiac groups and personality characteristica after she said "Seriously"? There, she advocates that the four elements, combined with the 12 astrological signs, categorizes "common personality traits". No smilies.

Was that meant as a joke, too?

If yes, how do you suggest we determine what posts are meant as a joke?

Why don't you do some research instead of "assuming"?

Why do you consider a call for evidence "jumping" on people?

Can you please focus on what we discuss here - astrology - and not turn this into a Miss Manners debate?


According to forum rules, please either:

address the questions, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Mr. Hoyt, I am not going to play your games. I made no claims. I simply provided you with my interpretation of her post.

You most assuredly did. Do I have to replay them for you? They begin with your claim that the horrid skeptics crawled all over Clancie with no cause. You are now claiming Clancie did not say that which clearly she did.

So, are you prepared to offer evidence that Clancie did not make claims about the validity of astrology? Please be assured I am not asking you to defend her claims, strictly those you made that claim she made no claims.

These aren't games, Thanz. This is a very basic thing about JREF: you must be prepared for others to challenge your claims. I hope you will not go for the drive-by assertion here. I hope you will either defend your claims or withdraw them.

Cheers,

[TLN]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
These aren't games, Thanz. This is a very basic thing about JREF: you must be prepared for others to challenge your claims. I hope you will not go for the drive-by assertion here. I hope you will either defend your claims or withdraw them.

Or simply don't make any claims.

If you're not here to be scrutinized, why come here at all?

[Thanz]

Woo-hoo! My very own LarsenList! I'd like to thank the Academy, my parents.... Wait (sniff) I am too emotional for this (sniff) Thank you all.....

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Today is October, 24th. What sign are we in? And why?
Don't care. According to the chart posted by voidx, Scorpio. Don't you think that all movie villians should have a name like "Scorpio"? In fact, I think that all movies should have at least one villian named Scorpio. And he should have an eyepatch.

Do you consider a statement correct, if people/newspapers refer to it as correct, even though it is provably wrong?
Do you consider something to be provably wrong when not even the "experts" in the field agree on the correct answer? Is light a wave or a particle? Is it a wavicle? Can you buy a "Wavicle" from the ice cream man? If so, what flavour is it?

Why do you ignore Clancie's paragraph about the zodiac groups and personality characteristica after she said "Seriously"? There, she advocates that the four elements, combined with the 12 astrological signs, categorizes "common personality traits". No smilies.
If you look up a bit, you will see that instead of ignoring this I already have given my interpretation of that paragraph. I take it that you disagree.
Was that meant as a joke, too?
Don't think so.

If yes, how do you suggest we determine what posts are meant as a joke?
Void. (woo hoo! Always wanted to say this in a LarsenList!)

Why don't you do some research instead of "assuming"?
What, pray tell, should I have researched? I assumed that she used the common dates. She referred to the common dates when she referred to voidx post. Also, if we use the common dates, Jan 1 is a Capricorn. Why don't you use some logical reasoning instead of going off on tangents?

Why do you consider a call for evidence "jumping" on people?
Purple.

Can you please focus on what we discuss here - astrology - and not turn this into a Miss Manners debate?

If you feel my posts were somehow inappropriate, I suggest that you report me to the stay-on-topic-police. I am sure that they will force me to speak of nothing but astrology for a week. Or send me to bed without supper.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You most assuredly did.
Cheers,
Sorry, nope. I simply gave a statement of my opinion. The tip, you see, is when I said "I think that all she was saying was that the traits identified and descibed in astrology are interesting from a personality traits identification perspective. I don't think she made any claims about the validity of astrology at all. " (emphasis added)

Just my interpretation of her post. Not a "claim" that I need to provide evidence for. Just an opinion. Feel free to disagree my opinion.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Or simply don't make any claims.
I haven't.

If you're not here to be scrutinized, why come here at all?
For interesting discussions with reasonable people.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
I haven't.

Sure you have. They're all above.

Originally posted by Thanz
For interesting discussions with reasonable people.

Nonsense. You're here to make drive-by assertions, then compain when you're taken to task on them.

Do you go out in the rain without an unbrella then complain you're all wet? That's what you're doing here. If you don't like people pointing out where your wrong, don't post here. You're clearly not cut out for it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
If you look up a bit, you will see that instead of ignoring this I already have given my interpretation of that paragraph. I take it that you disagree.

I think that all she was saying was that the traits identified and descibed in astrology are interesting from a personality traits identification perspective.
Therefore, you agree with her claim that there is validity to these descriptions? Therefore, you agree that there are 12 and only 12 personality types and that they are described by sun signs? Where is your evidence for this?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Sorry, nope. I simply gave a statement of my opinion. The tip, you see, is when I said "I think that all she was saying was that the traits identified and descibed in astrology are interesting from a personality traits identification perspective. I don't think she made any claims about the validity of astrology at all. " (emphasis added)

Just my interpretation of her post. Not a "claim" that I need to provide evidence for. Just an opinion. Feel free to disagree my opinion.

This ploy doesn't cut it. One doesn't transform a claim into an opinion by simply couching it. Now this was recently done by somebody else. I have to go research who did it. Hmm.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Sure you have. They're all above.
Nope. No claims. Just opinions.

Nonsense. You're here to make drive-by assertions, then compain when you're taken to task on them.
I have over 1750 posts. At least some of them have been interesting discussions with reasonable people. What "drive by assertions"? What "complaints"?

Do you go out in the rain without an unbrella then complain you're all wet?
I might complain about the weather. Does that count?
That's what you're doing here. If you don't like people pointing out where your wrong, don't post here. You're clearly not cut out for it.
Hey - if I am wrong, just point it out. I don't care. You are the one who says that the assertion that Jan. 1 is Capricorn (as validated by the tropical chart) is provably wrong. Claus says that there is so much turmoil in the astrology world that no one agrees who is right and who is wrong about dates such as January 1. So, unless no one thinks that Jan. 1 is Capricorn, who is right - you or Claus? Is their inherent uncertainty about the date or not?

Now, I feel that I must apologize to the Komencanto. I have played no small part in taking this thread completey off the rails. I have even posted again after I said I wouldn't.

Komencanto, I apologize. I have no constructive advice to offer above what other posters have suggested.

TLN, Claus, BillHoyt - If you really wish to continue our inane discussion, please open a new thread (unless Komencanto no longer cares about this one).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Hey - if I am wrong, just point it out. I don't care. You are the one who says that the assertion that Jan. 1 is Capricorn (as validated by the tropical chart) is provably wrong. Claus says that there is so much turmoil in the astrology world that no one agrees who is right and who is wrong about dates such as January 1. So, unless no one thinks that Jan. 1 is Capricorn, who is right - you or Claus? Is their inherent uncertainty about the date or not?

On January 1st the sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. What part of this don't you understand?

[Clancie]

Posted by BillHoyt

Therefore, you agree with her claim that there is validity to these descriptions? Therefore, you agree that there are 12 and only 12 personality types and that they are described by sun signs?

Well, I don't have Thanz's fortitude to discuss things with people who obviously have a comprehension problem when reading what I write, Bill, but please at least show where I made the claims you are attributing to me above? ....

1. That I think there only 12 personality types

2. That I believe these 12 personality types are accurately described by the 12 signs of the zodiac

Please provide the quotes to support your claim that I believe these three things and have asserted them here.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
TLN, Claus, BillHoyt - If you really wish to continue our inane discussion, please open a new thread (unless Komencanto no longer cares about this one).

No way, Thanz. This is an excellent demonstration of what happens when one challenges superstitious beliefs.

I found the post from the last time someone tried to disguise a claim by putting it in an opinion wrapper:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tr'oll Chi said this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stated an opinion, not a claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's take this one out for a spin down the reductio ad absurdum highway. Apparently, Tr'oll thinks that couching a claim in emotive language somehow transforms the claim into an opinion. With this logic, then, we can construct the following statement:
I feel gravity doesn't exist

Are we now to let this go unchallenged? Simply because of the word, "feel"? Simply because you have couched the claim doesn't mean it must go unchallenged. Whether you "think" it or "feel" it, you are still saying "a lot of" Grenard's statements "have merit and are worth exploring."

Your choices here at JREF are to:
o marshall evidence to support this claim,
o state you have no evidence to support this claim,
o withdraw the claim

Your move.
_______________________________________________

Your move.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


On January 1st the sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. What part of this don't you understand?
That doesn't stop a large number of astrologers, who use the "tropic" chart, from claiming that a person born on January 1 is a Capricorn. Hence, the uncertainty. What part of that don't you understand? And again, what difference does it make to the joke? Do you ask people to prove that a chicken crossed the road or that a string walked into a bar?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie


Well, I don't have Thanz's fortitude to discuss things with people who obviously have a comprehension problem when reading what I write, Bill, but please at least show where I made the claims you are attributing to me above? ....

1. That I think there only 12 personality types

2. That I believe these 12 personality types are accurately described by the 12 signs of the zodiac

Please provide the quotes to support your claim that I believe these three things and have asserted them here.

Clancie,

I have already posted them:

"Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too)."

Implicit here is a claim that the sign/personality type mapping has validity. But since the signs are tied to birth dates, implicit here also is the secondary claim that there is a correlation between birth date and personality type.

She supports this notion at several points in her post. Most notably, here:

"Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun."

Psychological insight here means an understanding of your own psychology. Based on what? The signs. Which are base on what? Birthdate. If she is not making this claim, then one needs to wonder what her confusion is about the meaning of gaining insight.

Next, Clancie steps into contradictory statements. First is:
"Step #2: Look at the birth date on your driver's license or birth certificate.

Step #3: Ignoring the year, find where that date would fall on the list that voidx posted above."

So, she says astrology says the year has no meaning. But then I raise Chinese astrology, where year is paramount. Clancie says she knows that, but now has to resolve the contradiction for us, or explain why her preferred astrology is correct and Chinese astrology is wrong.

We're still waiting for the evidence or explanations on all of the above.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, information that is debateable.

This isn't a claim?

Thanz, on January 1st the Sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. There's no debate here.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Therefore, you agree with her claim that there is validity to these descriptions? Therefore, you agree that there are 12 and only 12 personality types and that they are described by sun signs? Where is your evidence for this?


You really need some help on your reasoning. Please show me where I expressed any agreement or disagreement with what Clancie was saying. I expressed an opinion describing what I thought she was trying to say. That's all.

[Clancie]

Specifically, Bill. Please take point #1 and follow it with my quote that supports it. Then do the same for point #2.

Here is, again, what you are claiming I have asserted here:

1. That I think there only 12 personality types

2. That I believe these 12 personality types are accurately described by the 12 signs of the zodiac


Please list each of these points with whatever quotes you have from me that support them--or retract it. Thank you.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
That doesn't stop a large number of astrologers, who use the "tropic" chart, from claiming that a person born on January 1 is a Capricorn.

Those people need telescopes. They're unequivocally wrong according to their own system!

Originally posted by Thanz
What part of that don't you understand?

How Astrologers can move stars, planets, and our own Sun to suit their whimsies.

Originally posted by Thanz
And again, what difference does it make to the joke?

Originally posted by Clancie
Unless he is misrepresenting his real birthdate for some reason, that does make him a Capricorn.

This isn't a joke Thanz and you have no evidence that it's such; it's a claim and a provably false claim at that.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Specifically, Bill. Please take point #1 and follow it with my quote that supports it. Then do the same for point #2.

Here is, again, what you are claiming I have asserted here:

1. That I think there only 12 personality types

2. That I believe these 12 personality types are accurately described by the 12 signs of the zodiac


Please list each of these points with whatever quotes you have from me that support them--or retract it. Thank you.

Asked and answered. Your turn.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


This isn't a joke Thanz and you have no evidence that it's such; it's a claim and a provably false claim at that.
But according to some astrologers it is not flase. That is the point. You can say that they are all wrong untill you are blue in the face. Claus says that there is no concensus on the dates. Clancie made her determination based on the assertions of those astrologers. If they are wrong, the error is theirs.

Again, however, what does it matter if Claus is a capricorn or not? Do you really need to prove Clancie wrong this badly? Could you have not just said that there is a problem with the way popular astrology calculates the dates for the signs, and given all of this neato-keen information without being a jerk about it?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN

This isn't a claim?

Thanz, on January 1st the Sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. There's no debate here.

I refer you to CFLarsen's article "Time is not on Astrology's side" which points out the date debate between different astrologers.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
I refer you to CFLarsen's article "Time is not on Astrology's side" which points out the date debate between different astrologers.

I refer you to the sky.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


I refer you to the sky.
It IS nice and blue today. A nice little pick me up from the stupid debate I was having on the internet. Thanks!

BTW, I notice that you ignore all questions as to why you felt it so necessary to prove Clancie wrong on a point she made as part of a joke.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
BTW, I notice that you ignore all questions as to why you felt it so necessary to prove Clancie wrong on a point she made as part of a joke.

Addressed above.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Addressed above.
Where? Why do you care so much if January 1 is capricorn? Just because Clancie said it was?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Where? Why do you care so much if January 1 is capricorn? Just because Clancie said it was?

Because it's factual. Why do you care so little about the distinction between belief and fact? Clancie doesn't have anything to do with it. I'd correct this statement if it was made by anyone, believer and skeptic alike.

Though, I know you must paint me as a slobbering zealot to make yourself feel better and ignore me. I'm unreasonable, harsh, and I've "jumped all over her."

Anything but right.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

I take your "replies" as a flat-out refusal to answer the questions. You are not prepared to answer any question about your own claims seriously.

Very well, then.

Originally posted by Thanz
I refer you to CFLarsen's article "Time is not on Astrology's side" which points out the date debate between different astrologers.

Nice try of misattributing my article to prove your point. It's not about what people claim, but what reality tells us.

On January 1st, the Sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. That is not "debatable". If you want to claim that it is in some other sign, then you are denying reality.

"Debating" over falsehoods is not a debate, but merely obfuscating the issue. That's what you are doing here.

You will not succeed. This is a board for skeptics, and any claim must be expected to be challenged. This is what happens to yours and Clancie's claims, and you both avoid the challenges like crazy.

This is why I consider you a woowoo, Thanz: You rarely challenge woowoo-claims, but are always among the first to attack skeptics, you never do any research of your own, you assume a great deal and argue from that, you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong and you try to shift attention to other matters, when your claims are challenged.

All classical woowoo traits. Try to find an astrological sign that fits that description. Ask Clancie.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN

Because it's factual. Why do you care so little about the distinction between belief and fact? Clancie doesn't have anything to do with it. I'd correct this statement if it was made by anyone, believer and skeptic alike.
I care so little because it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on my life if the sun is ever in front of the constellation capricorn, or whether it was 3000 years ago, or if people still use the charts from 3000 years ago, or whether people debate about what chart is correct or what theory of astrology is correct. You see, "astrology" and "factual" are not two terms that really belong together anyway, IMO.

Though, I know you must paint me as a slobbering zealot to make yourself feel better and ignore me. I'm unreasonable, harsh, and I've "jumped all over her."


TLN, I went back and read your original post about how astrology works, and I think I owe you an apology. Your original post was factual in nature and informative. Clancie's reply was a little bit snippy, as your post only really dealt with the "joke" portion of her post and not the main point of her ideas regarding astrology. I think the conflict escalated from there.

When I wrote that I thought she was being hyper-analyzed, however, this was part of my complaint.

It should not have gotten escalated to this point and for that, I apologize. I just didn't think that the "provably wrong statement" really mattered at all. When you said that "No one seems to care" about the shift in the constellations, you were exactly right.

I apologize.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
I apologize.

Accepted.

Thanz, you might want to read this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6666) in an attempt to see where I'm coming from. I'm not always successful.

Thank you very much for displaying a rare trait on these boards.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I take your "replies" as a flat-out refusal to answer the questions. You are not prepared to answer any question about your own claims seriously.
Take it that way if you like. I answered your questions. Do you just not know what to do when someone actually answers your silly LarsenLists?

Nice try of misattributing my article to prove your point. It's not about what people claim, but what reality tells us.

On January 1st, the Sun will not be in the constellation Capricorn. That is not "debatable". If you want to claim that it is in some other sign, then you are denying reality.
Ah, but Clancie did not say "The sun is in Capricorn on January 1st". She said that January 1st is capricorn, which, according to some authorities, it is. Those authorities may be wrong. But they still say it - as do most newspapers in North America, which is where most people get their "knowledge" of astrology. They look up their birthdate, read the horoscope, get a laugh and move on.

"Debating" over falsehoods is not a debate, but merely obfuscating the issue. That's what you are doing here.
I am not obfuscating anything.

You will not succeed. This is a board for skeptics, This is a board for skeptics and believers alike.

and any claim must be expected to be challenged. This is what happens to yours and Clancie's claims, and you both avoid the challenges like crazy.
What challenges have I avoided? I answered your questions.

This is why I consider you a woowoo, Thanz: You rarely challenge woowoo-claims,
I express my opinion on a number of different topics. If I am not constantly challenging the "woo woos" I am one?
but are always among the first to attack skeptics,It is not "skeptics" that I "attack", it is the bullying tactics of jerks like you. Provide me a list of all of the "skeptics" I have attacked, with references please.
you never do any research of your own,
Never? Please prove this claim. I did research in the infamous JE counting thread. I'd say this disproves your assertion.
you assume a great deal and argue from that, you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong
Proven wrong in this very thread - I have apologized to TLN.
and you try to shift attention to other matters, when your claims are challenged.
Evidence?

All classical woowoo traits.
Where do we find this listing of classical woowoo traits?

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

It's nice to see you can admit your errors. Well, at least one.

[komencanto]

Christ, you try starting a stread and people start having an argumentabout something you don´t care about at all. Back on topic. Anyone who wants a flame war should go to the flame war forum. Thank you.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by komencanto
Christ, you try starting a stread and people start having an argumentabout something you don´t care about at all. Back on topic. Anyone who wants a flame war should go to the flame war forum. Thank you.
Unfortunately, komencanto, we are on topic, by negative example. This is an example of what happens when you confront believers. I don't know how deeply held your teacher's belief is, but you will certainly find out by providing that translation to her. It may raise her hackles, as you've just seen here. She may also try to cover over her own beliefs so that you can't challenge them. If you persist, she may very well launch venomous attacks. Or play dodge ball. There are endless possibilities.

Don't, however, expect to waltz in and have a reasonable conversation about the topic and make any headway. She clearly has a blind spot, if not an outright inability to think rationally. Moving her out of the darkness will be difficult. I would suggest the first question to ask yourself is: is it worth it?

If you decide to try the translation approach, you may also consider doing so anonymously. That could save future friction.

Cheers,

[komencanto]

In the end I decided it wasn´t worth it.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Thanz
Do you consider something to be provably wrong when not even the "experts" in the field agree on the correct answer? Is light a wave or a particle? Is it a wavicle?
I hope you didn't mean for this to be an example of experts disagreeing on a correct answer.

Physicists all agree on how light will behave in different circumstances. There is no disagreement. In some circumstances, light's particle properties are unimportant, and it's referred to as a "wave." In other circumstances, light's wave properties are unimportant, and it's referred to as a "particle." In still other circumstances, both its wave and particle properties are important, and it's referred to as a "wavicle." This does not mean that two different physicists will come up with a different answer for how the light will actually behave in a given circumstance, and that's really all that matters when it comes to getting a "correct answer".

[Thanz]

Originally posted by tracer

I hope you didn't mean for this to be an example of experts disagreeing on a correct answer.

Physicists all agree on how light will behave in different circumstances. There is no disagreement. In some circumstances, light's particle properties are unimportant, and it's referred to as a "wave." In other circumstances, light's wave properties are unimportant, and it's referred to as a "particle." In still other circumstances, both its wave and particle properties are important, and it's referred to as a "wavicle." This does not mean that two different physicists will come up with a different answer for how the light will actually behave in a given circumstance, and that's really all that matters when it comes to getting a "correct answer".
All I learned about the physics of light I learned in high school. All that I remember was that light behaved as a particle sometimes and a wave in others, and that no one really quite understood the true nature of light. I don't really imagine a bunch of physicists sitting around a lab yelling "Wave!" and "Particle" like "tastes great!" and "less filling"!

[tracer]

Originally posted by Thanz
All I learned about the physics of light I learned in high school. All that I remember was that light behaved as a particle sometimes and a wave in others, and that no one really quite understood the true nature of light.
Then your physics teacher misled you. We do understand the "true nature of light" well enough to make solid, verified predictions about its behavior. However, that understanding requires a quantum mechanical model that doesn't have any analogues in the macroscopic world of normal human experience, and so it's impossible to come up with an easy-to-grasp analogy of what light behaves like. (E.g., there's nothing in normal human experience that comes in indivisble chunks yet passes through both slits in a two-slit grating simultaneously -- but this doesn't mean our mathematical models don't predict the behavior of the photons.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
All I learned about the physics of light I learned in high school. All that I remember was that light behaved as a particle sometimes and a wave in others, and that no one really quite understood the true nature of light. I don't really imagine a bunch of physicists sitting around a lab yelling "Wave!" and "Particle" like "tastes great!" and "less filling"!

See the problem? This is another example of you not doing your own homework. You argue from assumptions and ignorance, and still argue that you are right. Again and again, we see this.

Sorry, Thanz, you are not right. It's not a question of opinion but fact. We do understand what light is.

And you shouldn't "imagine" what a bunch of physicists do in a lab, you should go find out. It is most en"light"ening...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

See the problem? This is another example of you not doing your own homework. You argue from assumptions and ignorance, and still argue that you are right. Again and again, we see this.
Oh, I see the problem allright. The problem is that you cannot let any trivial thing go by when it comes from a poster that you dislike. Where is the discussion about the true nature of light? Nowhere. We aren't discussing it. It was not a good example for my point, but again, I haven't taken physics since high school.

Sorry, Thanz, you are not right. It's not a question of opinion but fact. We do understand what light is.
So what? I never claimed to BE right. Tracer pointed out that what I had posted was not an accurate example of experts disagreeing on something. That's fine. My reply was just to explain the limited extent of my knowledge, not to dispute what tracer had said. Of course, I can always count on you to misinterpret what I say.

And you shouldn't "imagine" what a bunch of physicists do in a lab, you should go find out. It is most en"light"ening...
Don't you understand anything? Are you not familiar with the "taste great, less filling" ads? Or are you trying to say that I am wrong and they do sit around yelling wave and particle at each other?

You really do go out of your way to take swipes at people, don't you?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Oh, I see the problem allright. The problem is that you cannot let any trivial thing go by when it comes from a poster that you dislike. Where is the discussion about the true nature of light? Nowhere. We aren't discussing it. It was not a good example for my point, but again, I haven't taken physics since high school.

[B]
So what? I never claimed to BE right. Tracer pointed out that what I had posted was not an accurate example of experts disagreeing on something. That's fine. My reply was just to explain the limited extent of my knowledge, not to dispute what tracer had said. Of course, I can always count on you to misinterpret what I say.

[B]
Don't you understand anything? Are you not familiar with the "taste great, less filling" ads? Or are you trying to say that I am wrong and they do sit around yelling wave and particle at each other?

You really do go out of your way to take swipes at people, don't you?

Thanz,

Let me suggest you review the posts you made so that you understand you brought up "wavicles" as an example of something physicists disagree about. It was a direct response to being questioned about your concern with facts. Your remarks were not misinterpreted.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Let me suggest you review the posts you made so that you understand you brought up "wavicles" as an example of something physicists disagree about. It was a direct response to being questioned about your concern with facts. Your remarks were not misinterpreted.
Mr. Hoyt, Let me suggest that you actually look at what I was responding to. Look at what Claus quoted. And then read my response with some sort of understanding, if you are able. My post was misinterpreted - I was not trying to insist that I was right.

I posted the wavicle example. It was a poor example, as pointed out by tracer. I accept that - and my reply just pointed out the basis of my "knowledge" on the subject and where I was coming from. Tracer seemed to understand my reply and informed me that my Physics teacher was not so good. Also fine.

So, physicists do not disagree about the nature of light. It was a poor example on my part. There is no issue here - no matter how much you and Mr. Larsen want to manufacture one.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Mr. Hoyt, Let me suggest that you actually look at what I was responding to. Look at what Claus quoted. And then read my response with some sort of understanding, if you are able. My post was misinterpreted - I was not trying to insist that I was right.

I posted the wavicle example. It was a poor example, as pointed out by tracer. I accept that - and my reply just pointed out the basis of my "knowledge" on the subject and where I was coming from. Tracer seemed to understand my reply and informed me that my Physics teacher was not so good. Also fine.

So, physicists do not disagree about the nature of light. It was a poor example on my part. There is no issue here - no matter how much you and Mr. Larsen want to manufacture one.

Thanz,

Puh-leeze. Retrace your posts. You began by claiming there were no facts about capricorn. You claimed Larsen's article supported that position. Unfortunately, Larsen did not take that position. Larsen pointed out that astrological charts run afoul of sidereal reality. Those are the facts: astronomy's facts. The school of astrology that accepts astronomical facts is, at least, right so far as that goes. But the main point is, and has been: there is a fact to the situation and many (most?) astrologers ignore it.

Do you now acknowledge that there is an astronomical fact about capricorn's position and that astronomy has it right and much of astrology has it wrong? If not, please justify that position.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Puh-leeze. Retrace your posts. You began by claiming there were no facts about capricorn. You claimed Larsen's article supported that position. Unfortunately, Larsen did not take that position. Larsen pointed out that astrological charts run afoul of sidereal reality.
But he also asserts that there is a school of astrology that maintains that maintains that January 1 is capricorn. That is an astrology fact for you. It happens to be a disputed astrology fact, as evidenced by Larsen's article.

Those are the facts: astronomy's facts. The school of astrology that accepts astronomical facts is, at least, right so far as that goes.
When did we start talking about astronomy? I have not made any assertions about the position of the sun on January 1st in relation to any constellations.

But the main point is, and has been: there is a fact to the situation and many (most?) astrologers ignore it.
I have simply been pointing out that the astrologers DO ignore it, and that they DO assert that January 1 is capricorn. Therefore, according to some "experts" in the field, Clancie was right.

Do you now acknowledge that there is an astronomical fact about capricorn's position and that astronomy has it right and much of astrology has it wrong? If not, please justify that position.
I think that astrology has got most of everything wrong. You are missing the point. The point is that according to a large number of astrologers, Clancie was right. Whether those Astrologers are astronomically correct is a completely separate issue, and I still don't know why so much is being made of what was said in a joke. Still.

What is the point here? That Clancie did not look up astronomical charts, and instead relied on the popular dates (for a JOKE?)? That I don't think that she should be taken to task for doing so? I mean, really, can't you just let this go?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
But he also asserts that there is a school of astrology that maintains that maintains that January 1 is capricorn. That is an astrology fact for you. It happens to be a disputed astrology fact, as evidenced by Larsen's article.
There is also a flat earth society. So what?

When did we start talking about astronomy? I have not made any assertions about the position of the sun on January 1st in relation to any constellations.
Astronomers would be the keepers of the relevant facts. That's all.

I have simply been pointing out that the astrologers DO ignore it, and that they DO assert that January 1 is capricorn. Therefore, according to some "experts" in the field, Clancie was right.
Argument from false authority. Astrologers are not authorities on the positions of the constellations relative to either the sun or our planet.

I think that astrology has got most of everything wrong. You are missing the point. The point is that according to a large number of astrologers, Clancie was right. Whether those Astrologers are astronomically correct is a completely separate issue, and I still don't know why so much is being made of what was said in a joke. Still.
So, back to the flat earth society, Thanz. If Clancie claimed the earth was flat, is she right because the non-authorities in the flat earth society hold the same position? No. Truth is truth. Fiction is fiction.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Mr. Hoyt -

I see that you refer to everything in my last post except for this:What is the point here? That Clancie did not look up astronomical charts, and instead relied on the popular dates (for a JOKE?)? That I don't think that she should be taken to task for doing so? I mean, really, can't you just let this go?
So again I ask you, what is the point?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt -

I see that you refer to everything in my last post except for this:
So again I ask you, what is the point?
Thanz,

What is your point? She made claims. They have been refuted. You made claims defending her claims. They are being refuted. If you have a problem with this, may I suggest an appropriate woo forum or kaffee klatch?

You make claims, you expect them to be challenged here.

WWRD?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Thanz,

What is your point? She made claims. They have been refuted. You made claims defending her claims. They are being refuted. If you have a problem with this, may I suggest an appropriate woo forum or kaffee klatch?
She made a joke. She was then forced to defend the factual basis for the joke. Way to keep those skeptical fires burning! NO stone unturned! Now, where is that horse that allegedly walked into a bar? Apparently, he has a long face...... :rolleyes:

Much of the debate that I got into was about language - can something be "provably wrong" when the so-called "experts" in the field do not agree on the correct answer? I say no. Astrology is all fiction anyway - so I don't really care if the dates for the various signs that are commonly referred to are not "correct" in that the sun is in that sign on those dates anymore. Really, WGAF?

The dates that Clancie used were certainly reasonable for the purpose she used them. If she tried to make an assertion about the position of the sun based on the astrology dates in the newspaper, I would agree with you. But all she did was use the newspaper dates for something that common astrology loves to dabble in - compatibility. And then made a joke. Give it a rest already.

And why is it such a big deal to you that Clancie referred to the common dates for a sign? Why do you even care if the common dates are wrong?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

She made a joke. ..

And why is it such a big deal to you that Clancie referred to the common dates for a sign? Why do you even care if the common dates are wrong?

Apparently you continue to miss the "Seriously" preceding the rest of the post? And the content of what followed?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Apparently you continue to miss the "Seriously" preceding the rest of the post? And the content of what followed?
Apparently you continue to miss that I have not been addressing that part of the post? I have given my reading of what I think she was saying, but that's it. I haven't defended the content, agreed with it or disagreed with it. And, as far as I read it, where the sun is in relation to certain constellations isn't relevant to that part of the post either.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

If you want to post something and then later, when it is pointed out that you are wrong, claim that it was never your claim or opinion anyway, please do so.

But it does make it a bit hard to take anything you post seriously. Seriously.

However, I will ask you to stop misrepresenting what I wrote in the article (or anywhere else). I have explained what I meant, and continuing to claim that you are right anyway (oops, you did it again) is simply dishonest.

Not being able to admit you were wrong is one thing. Claiming that other people support you when they do not is quite another.

Thank you.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
And, as far as I read it, where the sun is in relation to certain constellations isn't relevant to that part of the post either.

It most assuredly is. She claimed insight into one's personality can be gained from astrology. She is, thereby, supporting the central indexing method of astrology, the birth signs. She is, thereby, supporting claims about constellation positions.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

If you want to post something and then later, when it is pointed out that you are wrong, claim that it was never your claim or opinion anyway, please do so.
Evidence, please. Put up or shut up.

However, I will ask you to stop misrepresenting what I wrote in the article (or anywhere else). I have explained what I meant, and continuing to claim that you are right anyway (oops, you did it again) is simply dishonest.
Does your article not point out that there are two main "factions" in astrology and they do not agree on the proper dates for the signs?

Not being able to admit you were wrong is one thing. Again, evidence please. Wrong about what?

Claiming that other people support you when they do not is quite another.
Your article points to a schism in the astrological world. I am referring to that schism, as pointed out by you. Or are you claiming that there is no division in the astrology world, despite your article?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by komencanto

Where does one go from here? I´m thinking of getting this: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=32 and translating it into Spanish for her (good practice anyway) and seeing what her reaction is.

But what do you guys reckon I should do?

Seriously though, whats the best course of action?

Well, according to the logic of thaiboxerken, you should insult her as much as possible, because if she believes in this than in his opinion, she is a woo woo, incapable of being rational.

To take a quote from him Originally posted by Thaiboxerken - you cannot rationally communicate with irrational people like believers. Rationality plays no part in their beliefs.

So, just insult her, call her names, and stay away from her.

Hope this helps ;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


It most assuredly is. She claimed insight into one's personality can be gained from astrology. She is, thereby, supporting the central indexing method of astrology, the birth signs. She is, thereby, supporting claims about constellation positions.

Cheers,
That is your interpretation. Have fun with that. I disagree. She specifically tried to get away from the twelve signs her post. She is talking about astrology as a tool for psycological insight, not anything to do with the stars. In fact, she says:Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.
She is not making the claims that you are trying to foist onto her, as far as I can see.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Evidence, please. Put up or shut up.

This thread, the astrology thread.

Can I ask you to provide evidence or "shut up" in the future? Or do the rules only apply to everyone else but yourself?

Originally posted by Thanz
Does your article not point out that there are two main "factions" in astrology and they do not agree on the proper dates for the signs?

Yes. Among other things. Where does it claim that Jan 1st is in fact in Capricorn?

Originally posted by Thanz
Again, evidence please. Wrong about what?

This thread, the astrology thread.

Originally posted by Thanz
Your article points to a schism in the astrological world. I am referring to that schism, as pointed out by you. Or are you claiming that there is no division in the astrology world, despite your article?

No, you were claiming that Jan 1st is in fact in Capricorn. It is not.

Tell me something: Do we have to ask each time you post if you are posting your own claims/opinions, or merely posting those of others? I'd really like to know, since it will save a lot of time in the future.

This swinging back-and-forth from you is most confusing. I simply cannot tell which is which.

[Leroy]

But what do you guys reckon I should do?

You could also use BillHoyts advice and simply do not discuss the topic at all with her because there isn't any evidence to support astrology, so it is a senseless topic and shouldn't be discussed.

originally posted by Leroy - Are you saying that there is no need to discuss it unless {we}, ourselves have some evidence?

originally posted by Billhoyt - Which part of that don't you understand?


posted by Billhoyt - Do you have a problem understanding why these are senseless topics? Waste your time if you like, but don't try to waste rational people's time.

So, according to Bill, don't waste your time trying to educate her since there is no evidence that astrology is real, it is senseless and a waste of time to discuss it with her. Just call her names, ridicule her, and walk away. :roll:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


This thread, the astrology thread.
You'll have to do better than that. I am asking for specifics. You are just repeating the allegation.

Can I ask you to provide evidence or "shut up" in the future? Or do the rules only apply to everyone else but yourself?
Please. The "put up or shut up" language comes from you. Don't you recognize it?

Yes. Among other things. Where does it claim that Jan 1st is in fact in Capricorn?
I never claimed that it did. I claimed that it pointed out that the "tropical" group says January first is Capricorn, and that this is one of the dates that is in dispute for the two astrology groups.

This thread, the astrology thread.
Again, specifics. Otherwise you are just repeating the allegation.

No, you were claiming that Jan 1st is in fact in Capricorn. It is not.
Incorrect. I am just claiming that one of the "expert" groups claims it is, and that this is in dispute. I have not claimed that Jan.1 is categorically capricorn.

Tell me something: Do we have to ask each time you post if you are posting your own claims/opinions, or merely posting those of others? I'd really like to know, since it will save a lot of time in the future.
Tell me something: do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? My posts speak for themselves. If you are really befuddled, just ask - I'll try to help you out.

This swinging back-and-forth from you is most confusing. I simply cannot tell which is which.
WTF are you talking about? Swinging back and forth about what?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy


Well, according to the logic of thaiboxerken, you should insult her as much as possible, because if she believes in this than in his opinion, she is a woo woo, incapable of being rational.

To take a quote from him

So, just insult her, call her names, and stay away from her.

Hope this helps ;)

I wouldn't go that far. I think you should make fun of her beliefs and ridicule them. Show her the absurdity of her claims. If she takes that as an insult, so be it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

That is your interpretation. Have fun with that. I disagree. She specifically tried to get away from the twelve signs her post. She is talking about astrology as a tool for psycological insight, not anything to do with the stars. In fact, she says:
She is not making the claims that you are trying to foist onto her, as far as I can see.

I invite you to read her post again.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Thanz

That is your interpretation. Have fun with that. I disagree. She specifically tried to get away from the twelve signs her post. She is talking about astrology as a tool for psycological insight, not anything to do with the stars. In fact, she says:
She is not making the claims that you are trying to foist onto her, as far as I can see. Yes. She said it was a fun tool for insight into four personality types (air/fire/earth/water), which is no less absurd, and which is why I jumped in (way back then). I actually don't understand why you have been skewered here so vociferously, though. Yes, I've read all the posts.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

You are quite right. Your posts speak for themselves. They prove my points very well.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

You are quite right. Your posts speak for themselves. They prove my points very well.
Which ones? Evidence, remember. Back up your claims or admit that you cannot.

[Clancie]

My point (again) was that although astrology describes characteristics that are not scientifically correlated with anything to do with the stars, they -do- seem to coincide with identifiable human characteristics. For that reason, people find it easy to "identify" with them--the traits described are familiar.

If you add to that, that the so-called twelve "signs" are really describing only four major clusters of personal traits (which astrology shorthands as "fire, water, earth, air") it is, I feel, more fruitful to argue against astrology more in a psychological sense, by showing it is an attempt to understand and categorize personality, and why that could make some apparent "matches" between an individual and his/her "sign" deceptively appear to be accurate..

If the signs actually are describing -real- personality traits that -real- people would recognize in themselves (or wish for in themselves), they could give credit to the "stars" when it is simply the likelihood of matching yourself with the common characteristics described.

After all, at least two clusters probably fit for any given person (so,..at least six signs would be recognizable). Figure you hedge your "matches" by including sun signs, moon signs, and rising signs...and its easy to see why some people could feel that "Yes, the signs correctly identify my characteristics".

Of course, to some people here, any psychological categorizations or theories outside of a Skinner box probably seem like woo-wooism.....:rolleyes:

[Parenthetically, isn't it interesting that those who -ridiculously- blasted me for my little joke about compatibility, have said absolutely nothing to those who used those now-typical zodiac conventions to answer the quiz in the "reverse astrology" link].

[hgc]

Originally posted by Clancie
My point (again) was that although astrology describes characteristics that are not scientifically correlated with anything to do with the stars, they -do- seem to coincide with identifiable human characteristics. For that reason, people find it easy to "identify" with them--the traits described are familiar.

...You'll get no argument from me on this. Sorry if I misunderstood you before.

[Clancie]

Okay, hgc. I have no problem with that at all.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
My point (again) was that although astrology describes characteristics that are not scientifically correlated with anything to do with the stars, they -do- seem to coincide with identifiable human characteristics. For that reason, people find it easy to "identify" with them--the traits described are familiar.

Evidence for the existence of these clusters, Clancie? Please provide it. Peer-reviewed psychology journals or text books, please.

Cheers,

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I wouldn't go that far. I think you should make fun of her beliefs and ridicule them. Show her the absurdity of her claims. If she takes that as an insult, so be it.

:D Bravo Thai! Yeah, that should accomplish a lot!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy


:D Bravo Thai! Yeah, that should accomplish a lot!

It has worked in the past. I've gotten a few of my friends to admit the absurdity of their beliefs, and a few to even realize that's it's so absurd to believe in that they stopped.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It has worked in the past. I've gotten a few of my friends to admit the absurdity of their beliefs, and a few to even realize that's it's so absurd to believe in that they stopped.

You're kidding, right? If someone has a serious belief in something, insults don't change those beliefs, they only silent the people who have them. Your friends may be the exception to the rule if they are anything like you.

[thaiboxerken]

Not only do I make fun of them, but I also show them why their beliefs are absurd. I think it's the second part that does the trick. The first part is probably not needed. Then again, it does spark their attention.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Not only do I make fun of them, but I also show them why their beliefs are absurd. I think it's the second part that does the trick. The first part is probably not needed. Then again, it does spark their attention.

You do? You show them why their beliefs are absurd? Why haven't I seen any evidence of that? Can you demonstrate?

1. What would you say to a woman who said to you that she believes in Mediumship?

2. What would you say to a man who said to you that he believes in mediumship?

[thaiboxerken]

You do? You show them why their beliefs are absurd? Why haven't I seen any evidence of that?

Because you don't participate in any aspect of my life outside of this forum.

Can you demonstrate?

1. What would you say to a woman who said to you that she believes in Mediumship?

It's ********.


2. What would you say to a man who said to you that he believes in mediumship?

It's ********.

'Nuff said.

[Clancie]

LeroyYou do? You show them why their beliefs are absurd? Can you demonstrate?

1. What would you say to a woman who said to you that she believes in Mediumship?

Thaiboxerken It's bullsh*t.

Leroy

2. What would you say to a man who said to you that he believes in mediumship?

TBK It's bullsh*t
Great, TBK! I've seen the light!

Oh, if only someone had taken the time earlier to demonstrate to me why my beliefs are absurd! :p

(P.S. Maybe you want to give Leroy's question another try? :rolleyes: )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
(P.S. Maybe you want to give Leroy's question another try? :rolleyes: )

Maybe you want to give Cleopatra's questions another try yourself? You've kinda given up on mine, I know that, but at least you could try to answer hers, given your strong propensity to demand answers from others....

Or is this yet another case of "One set of rules for Clancie, another set of rules for everybody else"?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Or is this yet another case of "One set of rules for Clancie, another set of rules for everybody else"?
**Ring**
"Hello, Kettle? This is Claus. You're black!"

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz

**Ring**
"Hello, Kettle? This is Claus. You're black!"

Can you provide an example of Claus using one set of rules for himself and another set of rules for others?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Can you provide an example of Claus using one set of rules for himself and another set of rules for others?
Sure. Claus constantly demands evidence from others to back up their claims. I refer you to any of the LarsenLists.

Yet, in this thread on page 4, when I ask for specific evidence to back up his claims about me, he only gives the general response "in this thread", which does nothing but repeat his assertion that I have done something in this thread. I ask him for specifics, and he gives a one liner response about my posts proving his point. I ask again for specifics, and so far, nothing.

I refer you also to the huge "Taken in by John Edward" thread in which he was asked to back up his assertions about Clancie and continued to respond with a non-answer until he illogically declared the questions to be "void".

So, Mr. Larsen demands very specific information in answer to his own questions, but feels just fine avoiding questions put to him by others.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Sure. Claus constantly demands evidence from others to back up their claims. I refer you to any of the LarsenLists.

Really? And how would me, asking questions, prove your point? Do you not think that holding people to their claims can be very useful?

Do you think that we should allow claims to go unchallenged? A yes or no would be much appreciated.

Originally posted by Thanz
Yet, in this thread on page 4, when I ask for specific evidence to back up his claims about me, he only gives the general response "in this thread", which does nothing but repeat his assertion that I have done something in this thread. I ask him for specifics, and he gives a one liner response about my posts proving his point. I ask again for specifics, and so far, nothing.

I refer you also to the huge "Taken in by John Edward" thread in which he was asked to back up his assertions about Clancie and continued to respond with a non-answer until he illogically declared the questions to be "void".

So, Mr. Larsen demands very specific information in answer to his own questions, but feels just fine avoiding questions put to him by others.

No, no, no. You are - apparently intentionally, because you have been made aware of this - leaving out a very pivotal point. I accepted that Clancie retracted her claim. Therefore, my other questions became void.

It would be most helpful if you could concentrate on the facts, instead of imagining things. Like you usually do.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Really? And how would me, asking questions, prove your point?
TLN asked me to point out one set of rules for you, and one set for others. In order to do so, I need to point out both sets. The rules you apply to others is that they must back up their claims in responses to questions from you.

You, however, seem to feel no need to apply this questiona answering rule to yourself.

No, no, no. You are - apparently intentionally, because you have been made aware of this - leaving out a very pivotal point. I accepted that Clancie retracted her claim. Therefore, my other questions became void.

No, no, no yourself. Clancie did not "retract her claim" as you state here. You attributed a certain claim to her, and she denied ever making the claim. Then, she merely confirmed what she claims her position was all along. That confirmation was in no way a "retraction" no matter how many times you say it. Further, it in no way voids the questions that were put to you which had to do with whether she ever made the statements you attributed to her. And you still have not substantiated that claim.

Here is the short version of what happened:
CFL: Clancie says no one ever complains about JE!

Clancie: No I don't say that no one ever complains. Evidence? How many times?

CFL: I don't know, I haven't tallied them.

Thanz: Any evidence that she has ever said it?

CFL: I have already answered that

Lurker:Stop playing word games. Does "I don't know I haven't tallied them" mean that she has (a non-zero number) and you don't know how many? Any evidence?

CFL: *hides head in sand*

Leroy: repeats Lurker's questions. A lot.

CFL: *nobody here but us chickens*

Clancie: I am sure that some people complain about JE

CFL: A-ha! she changed her mind. Therefore questions are void. [this, of course, ignores the fact that she did not change her mind, and that it does nothing to void questoins about the evidence CFL had when he made the initial claim]
It would be most helpful if you could concentrate on the facts, instead of imagining things. Like you usually do.
If anyone is imagining things, it is you Mr. Larsen. I am sticking to the facts. You have not backed up your assertions here, and you did not back up your assertions in the other thread.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken Not only do I make fun of them, but I also show them why their beliefs are absurd. I think it's the second part that does the trick. The first part is probably not needed. Then again, it does spark their attention.

originally posted by LeroyYou do? You show them why their beliefs are absurd? Why haven't I seen any evidence of that? Can you demonstrate?

1. What would you say to a woman who said to you that she believes in Mediumship?

2. What would you say to a man who said to you that he believes in Mediumship?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


1. What would you say to a woman who said to you that she believes in Mediumship?

It's ********.


2. What would you say to a man who said to you that he believes in mediumship?

It's ********.

'Nuff said.

Okay, and that shows them how their beliefs are absurd, how? And this demonstrates your rational valid arguments, how?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Thanz

**Ring**
"Hello, Kettle? This is Claus. You're black!"

:D Yeah, what Thanz said!