posted on February 20, 2001 07:57:52 AM
posted on February 18, 2001 10:10:11 AM
Oh... and race day Daytona, with Mercury Rx conjunct Uranus sq Saturn....
_____________________________________________
An extremely vague, indeed cryptic oracle that those who believe in astrology could read practically any event into after the fact? Good or bad, joyful or tragic.
I believe the causes for what happens are to be found much closer to home than the stars and planets.
posted on February 20, 2001 08:48:06 AMcodasaurus - it is egregiously unfair and somewhat specious to take a statement, out of the context of the rest of the discussion, which was intended to indicate only that it was an inauspicious day to hold that race at that location, and try to use that statement to attempt to refute the validity of a field of study. Particularly so when future events proved that it was indeed an inauspicious day for that race.
posted on February 20, 2001 09:14:43 AM
codasaurus - my message was not cryptic to an astrologer, since we all know what Uranus, Saturn, Mercury, and "square" signify. Only someone ignorant of astrology could read something GOOD into that configuration.
It is quite straightforward and was posted immediately after one where I said the chart of the Bush's inauguration was "chilling". The post was in fact an extension of the one before it. It was posted as an "observation" in exactly the way therpowen suggests...
"bad day for a race"
I just happened to hear that there was a race (I do not follow Nascar) and then click on "planets now" and could not help but notice that it was ugly for cars in the same way that it is impossible not to notice that the inauguration chart is distinctly ugly.
Now codasaurus, what is your motive here? I suppose you must miss my writing
Maybe you love to hate me, LOL!
Whatever it is, I will not post further on this topic, but if you choose to, the next time you quote me, how about crediting me by name? Thanks in advance.
[ edited by VeryModern on Feb 20, 2001 09:19 AM ]
If you don't mind my saying so, and even if you do, I think that it's equally specious to attempt to establish any validity for astrology as a field of study.
Even after the fact, as most of the predictions are, it might have been said to be "a bad day for racing" were it not for the fact that there were races conducted in various places and activities around the world without incident.
All that's left for astrology is to say "it was a bad day for Dale", but of course he already knew that.
I believe, and I'm sure that VM will correct me if I'm mistaken, that that particular configuration was for that date, that time, and that location. It would hold no validity for races (or any other activity) not held at that date, time, and location.
posted on February 20, 2001 09:39:15 AM
well,
a person lost their life.
that is generally considered a bad thing.
But unfortunately, it will happen to all of
us, sooner or later.
you stated, "If you don't mind my saying so, and even if you do, I think that it's equally specious to attempt to establish any validity for astrology as a field of study."
posted on February 20, 2001 09:52:01 AM
So what is the point of the topic and the original post?
It seems to me that the intent is not to initiate a discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of astrology, but rather to mock a fellow poster, VeryModern. I find that apparent motive gratuitously cruel and needlessly contentious.
I read the post in question and later in the day, after hearing of Earnhardt's death, returned to it in order to ascertain the time of the post. I was surprised. It was not offered as a proof of the validity of astrology nor was it specific regarding a particular occurrence. I share code's scepticism regarding all things metaphysical, but must confess to a certain fascination with the subject. I followed and participated in VM's thread and was greatly entertained.
I cannot support the "science" of astrology, but I will support the astrologer.
My point would be that, at least for that person, their family, the many many fans, and for that race, because the events happened at that race, it certainly was an inauspicious day.
As for the pointlessness of argument, I would have to agree with you.
therpowen
double that
[ edited by therpowen on Feb 20, 2001 09:57 AM ]
I am afraid you have misunderstood me. I am neither a 'believer' nor a 'disbeliever' in Astrology. I have seen anecdotal evidence that there may be some validity in it. I have seen equally anecdotal evidence that it is complete hogwash. And, quite frankly, it is a matter of no moment to me one way or the other.
It is, however, a matter of concern to me when I see one AW member indirectly attack another AW member who I happen to have a great deal of respect for, based soley on an out of context statement made from the sincere belief of that member.
posted on February 20, 2001 10:50:42 AM
Those who don't believe in astrology - that's fine. No one is forcing anyone to believe in it.
VeryModerns threads here have been helpful, respectful and polite.
No one is forcing anyone to even peruse them.
I don't see why she has to be open to the usual AW scrutiny.
Heck, we all are not clones of each other. Some of us believe in God, some don't, some of us are pro life, some are pro-choice, some Dems, some Republicans and some of us are even free thinkers.
Viva la difference ... sure would be a boring world if we all thought the same, acted alike and looked alike.
affirmation comes from within ...
not at the expense of another.
posted on February 20, 2001 01:09:46 PM
I agree with xardon.
Everyone who read the astrology thread knows that Code is a close-minded skeptic when it comes to astrology.
Based on that, my interpretation of the opening post is to ridicule another poster and her beliefs. It certainly wasn't to debate astrology.
There is an air of superiority to it.
An extremely vague, indeed cryptic oracle that those who believe in astrology could read practically any event into after the fact? Good or bad, joyful or tragic.
The same thing could be said about the many interpretations of select passages in the Bible to justify beliefs, actions, etc.
posted on February 20, 2001 02:05:25 PM
Hi toke-sis!
Sometimes I forget to uncheck my sig line, maybe this time that is good
krs
Aw, this is not an exemption thing. I would say that 99% of the posters here deserve that respect (even you ). The few that don't I tend to ignore.
I did not mean to come off as telling anyone what they can and should post and apologize to all if I did.
I just don't see why we can't embrace our differences and disagree respectfully.
VM has given of herself here selflessly and has brought insight and comfort to many (myself included). I think it is super to have a poster who is kind, giving and does not spend her time tearing someone apart. She certainly adds a nice flavor to the soup.
We are all unique and have our own beliefs and feelings, why should we not just accept this and respect it.
posted on February 20, 2001 02:28:49 PM
I posted the quote without attribution specifically to avoid the implication that my query or observation was personal.
I am indeed a skeptic of astrology. But I am certainly not close minded about it. In VM's own topic I asked for something specific by way of a prediction and she made several posts about what I could expect over the next few months. None of which has transpired in so far as I have been able to determine.
Indeed, VM posted some thoughts based on her reading of my horoscope that I can rather emphatically say are the opposite of what has transpired.
My use of the word oracle in my first post was in the 1.c sense of the following definition as opposed to a reference to a person (the 1.b or 2 sense):
oracle 1.a. A shrine consecrated to a prohetic deity. b. A priest or priestess at such a shrine. c. A prophecy made known at such a shrine. 2. A wise person.
Hello VM,
I read your later posts in the thead were you disavowed any specific fore knowledge of Dale's accident. I also read one or two posts that commented on how accurate your post was. Perhaps the thought I'm trying to express here is more about how people read into what others say.
Until astrology demonstrates that it can accurately predict the future in controlled and repeatable experiments I will remain a skeptic.
And to those who yearn to believe in something and abandon their natural skepticism on the thinest of evidence I can only say that I hope your faith supports you when your abandonment of reason leads you into bad situations.
posted on February 20, 2001 02:35:30 PM
Given his stated feelings on the subject, it is curious that Codasaurus is reading the astrology thread so closely.... I would have thought a non-believer would have been bored with the discussion long ago.
I became involved in this topic because I thought that it was
a discussion of astrology masquerading as science.
I knew nothing about the strife between codasaurus and Very Modern
because I don't read the astrology threads.
Incidently, I looked for the source of this quote so that I could
read it in context but was unable to find it. Maybe someone can
locate the quote and paste it here.
Anyway, I feel that I have been used by
Codasaurus to advance his agenda and I resent that.
posted on February 20, 2001 03:09:21 PM I asked for something specific by way of a prediction and she made several posts about what I could expect over the next few months. None of which has transpired in so far as I have been able to determine. Indeed, VM posted some thoughts based on her reading of my horoscope that I can rather emphatically say are the opposite of what has transpired.
Hold one codasaurus.
I was referring to a transit of Saturn to your Natal Venus in Gemini sq Saturn and it is not yet upon you. Saturn is still in Taurus, but don't worry, he's a commin'!
I said MID year and I meant MID year, and I will go further to say that you will still have a problem into 2002 and so I would not gloat just yet, because what you are going to find quite unfortunately, is that I am correct.
