On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:07:55 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: > > I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John > Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts > whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal' > randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such. > Even thinking in proper(?) conventional science terms: RANDOM occurrences > would eliminate the possibility of sci. prediction and proper conclusions. > Agnostic, or not. > > To John (Clark)'s PRIVATE(?) question: I stuck my nose into astrology 60+ > years ago, for a short while. Numerology was always one of my favorite > sources of laughter. > I would recommend http://www.amazon.com/Numerology-Complete-Guide-Matthew-Goodwin/dp/1564148599#reader_1564148599 for Numerology. I don't know that it's especially funny, but it is very thorough and concise.