> > You are much MUCH *MUCH* more ignorant about astrology > > than I had thought. > > LOL. Do enlighten us then.
Let's not, and say we did. Why do I get the feeling that it would sound a lot like someone expounding upon their "knowledge" of phrenology? I mean, a person could talk all day about all that they have learned about how feeling the bumps on a person's head enables them to discern his or her future, and cite all of the Phrenology Masters they had studied with, but none of that makes phrenology itself any less bogus. Astrology and Jyotish are exactly the same. Those who have foolishly devoted large periods of time and energy to "learning about them" want to "defend" that expenditure of time and energy, as if it were worth it, and as if it made them "better" than those who spent their time on more useful pursuits. The day that an astrologer of any stripe can look at a pile of "charts" for babies born in the same city on the same day at about the same time -- NONE of them marked with either name or sex or any identifying information -- and pick out which of them is the chart of the new royal heir, all with- out having seen the real chart to compare with, *then* you can talk about your "knowledge" of astrology. The day you can predict something -- anything -- accurately (and according to rigorous scientific methods) using astrology, *then* you can talk about the supposed "superiority" of having spent your time studying a pseudoscience. But we'll probably laugh at you then, too, because after all you're expressing a belief in something essentially stupid. People are *allowed* to laugh at such things. You just don't *like* that they are.
