--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your > > misunderstandings of astrology (not for "defending" it > > as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of > > it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, > > because it gets in the way of determining what's really > > going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. > > So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit > it. > > And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* > astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers > they are still measuring planetary positions and birth > dates.
See what I mean? You just DO NOT TAKE IN what you read. Instead, you make stuff up that you can refute. Yes, Jung understood the ancient "As above, so below" principle of astrology. But why on *earth* would you think that principle was somehow inconpatible with measuring planetary positions on birth dates? > And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it > but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of > a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit > would be a starting point. That's how science works. *giggle* I just got done telling you I'm not *disputing* the lack of scientific evidence for astrology. > And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology > *really* is because I wouldn't understand PaliGap already explained it. You're smart enough to understand it. It's vulnerable to criticism. But you'd rather keep kicking your straw men. > or do you just > accept that the term "a-causal" must be right because it > obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if > you think it would. Huh? Where did I suggest such a thing? Again, you've *made that up* instead of taking in what I *have* said. > I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung > too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology > readings, Regarding how *what* affects astrology readings? (BTW, if we were to discuss Jung's ideas about astrology, we'd have to talk about Wolfgang Pauli's too.) > but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due > to my disgraceful arrogance. I have? Who am I talking to now? > Which is handy for you. Smack! Another straw man, deader'n a doornail! > I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things > you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is > a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't > change how we might find out the validity of birth chart > predictions. Right. Did somebody say it would? > I actually don't care how you find my "brand" of thinking, > until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the > contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless > belief system. S/N first. It's quite amazing, but you still aren't getting it. I'm tempted to embarrass you by quoting your initial posts in this thread, about how if you know the physical facts of the solar system you can't put any stock in astrology. Not to mention all the *other* knee-slappers you've chalked up since then because you're not taking in what you've been told. The point, once again, is that if you're going to do a proper job of debunking a claim, you need to debunk what is actually claimed rather than a claim you've made up. My favorite is your notion that I had said astrology doesn't use planets, a notion you *reiterated* in response to my saying that *of course* it uses planets. Which whopping blooper, of course, you've deleted without acknowledging it.
