|
| |
what_skeptics_think_they_know_about_astrology
|
|
|
dafremen
|
Hey, hows it going? Well I'm off again on this silly crusade to give away free_gold_bricks. (Astrology) So far there have SOME takers. Seems the only ones that don't or haven't become intrigued are the ones that are so caught up in disbelief (or disinterest) that they won't even take the time to investigate to make sure that they hold a valid opinion.
Over in answers_for_atrology_skeptics you will count them using the SAME tired argument (which is not really an argument at all) at least 4 times. What they say is that the constellations have moved due to the Earth's wobble on it's own axis. "Therefore", they'll tell you, "The signs aren't even in the same place anymore."
Well while it is absolutely true that the constellations that USED to be ancient man's marker for the positions of the signs have moved, it's still an invalid argument because astrologers don't USE the stars to determine the location of the signs.
What this "precession of the constellations" argument is REALLY, is an argument in favor of skeptics doing their homework. I mean REALLY doing their homework, not reading a bunch of books by scientists who agree with their opinions (or more likely, by the guys who FORMED those opinions for our dear skeptics.)
Western Astrology has never REALLY used the stars to determine where the signs are. The stars were simply placeholders for the ancients. See, they didn't have fancy calculators, computers or astrolabes to do the figuring for them. So they used the stars as a guide to tell them more or less where they were in the season's cycles. We don't need to use the stars anymore. We have computers, and graphs and tables.
You'll find humanistic astrology to be VERY accurate when performed by a competent astrologer.
A second thing the skeptics like to state, is that there is NO empirical or statistical evidence for the validity of astrology. This is absolute malarky, and if they don't know it, they should.
While the VAST majority of published "scientific" studies were performed in an attempt to debunk astrology, even some of these found direct statistical correlations.
Why would so many "scientific" studies come up empty handed? The first thing that needs to be taken into account is the intimate knowledge that these researchers had of astrology. In almost ALL cases, it was either a cursory understanding, or no understanding at all other than the common misconceptions that are floating around about astrology. That's like asking someone who knows nothing about chemistry to design a chemistry experiment in order to test the validity of a chemical theory. How preposterous is that?
Personally, I think this the scientific community's version of "backlash" for all of the quackery of centuries preceding the last one. They've become absolutely NON-objective in their attacks upon something which they...in reality..know little or nothing about.
That is not the mark of a good scientist, but rather is the mark of...yes you guessed it..a quack.
I can think of at least ONE absolutely verifiable astrological phenomenon:
It has to do with ovulation in women. When a person is born, we call the snapshot of the positions of the planets at that moment a natal horoscope.
Those things you read in the paper? Those aren't horoscopes. Those are garbage.
A horoscope is a diagram of the positions of the planetary bodies at any given moment in time. At the moment a woman is born, the Sun and the Moon are at a specific angle and number of degrees in relation to each other. What astrologers have known for many, many thousands of years, is that A WOMAN CAN ONLY CONCEIVE (naturally) DURING AN APPROXIMATELY 2 HOUR PERIOD OF EACH LUNAR MONTH, BEGINNING WHEN THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF DEGREES APART AS THEY WERE AT THE MOMENT OF HER BIRTH.
Now that may be a "generalized" statement. And I may be going WAAAAY out on a limb here. But I don't think so.
For you skeptics that claim there is no causal connection...tough sh*t. Those were YOUR requirements for something to be found true...not the universe's.
There is your piece of information...there is the next statement of astrological lore for you to disprove. Go for it. Better make it good too. Because I'm watching you, and if you screw up or unduly bias your studies through ignorance, I'll be there to remove your blinders for you.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
Many skeptics (and nonskeptics alike)seem to think that astrology encompasses only 12 different types of people. Many think that astrology claims that it is for this reason, people's actions and behaviors can be predicted.
Poppycock. You, and the people around you are absolutely unique individuals. That is what astrology teaches. It teaches that there won't be another born with the same natal chart as you for 2.5 Million years. By then, genetic and culture will have changed so much, that when it happens, the person will STILL not be exactly like you. You are ONE of a kind. Astrology would never tell you otherwise.
What astrology DOES teach, is that there are certain traits that are more LIKELY to be true of people with CERTAIN influences in their charts than of others.
A good example might be to look at coffee tables. Let's say that I was born under the (made up)sun sign of coffee table. My friend was ALSO born under the sun sign of coffee table. An astrologer might be able to venture a guess that we each have 4 legs. That we spend much of our time in the living room. That we likely have a flat horizontal surface on the top. These are traits that MOST (not all, but MOST), coffee tables share. Will you come across a person born under the sign of coffee table that DOESN'T have 4 legs? Yes. Absolutely. Will you find one that DOESN'T reside in the living room? Almost CERTAINLY you will.
So what use is astrology then if it's not 100% accurate?
I'm not sure if that's even a question. I mean what use is deduction in passing a multiple choice test? What use does it do the insurance companies to raise the rates for people under 25? Is it because ALL people under 25 are a higher risk? Of course not. It's because MORE people are a higher risk in that age group than are not. This saves the insurance company billions each year. You could try to tell them that they are creating policies based on a generalization that isn't 100% accurate. I'm sure they'd maybe thank you for your concern..then ask you to scoot along.
The sun sign, which is the one you are probably most familiar with, is a good overall indicator, but a ROTTEN indicator of specifics. More damage has done by atrologers who perform Sun sign only interpretations than scientists could EVER do. There are many more influences, the Moon being the preferred planet.
The reason we use Sun signs? Simple. There wasn't enough room in the newspapers for all of the tables people would need to look up their moon sign.
(I'm working on that as we speak. I've come up with a formula for calculating your moon sign with a standard pocket calculator. Still has one more detail to be ironed out. Shouldn't be much longer.)
So, no. Astrology NEVER said that you were the same as these other people. It simply said that you are LIKELY to share CERTAIN traits with those people.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
You've probably heard that astrologers try to predict the future. That's ALSO a load of horse muffins. Those astrologers that mislead people into thinking they are predicting the future are charlatans and a disgrace to astrology.
Astrology doesn't usually deal in absolutes. This is not to be intentionally vague, but because the universe doesn't generally deal in absolutes. When trying to describe the mechanism and cycles of nature, if you described them in absolute terms, you would be correcting yourself FOREVER. (If such a thing were possible.)
What astrology deals with are probabilities, likelihoods and guesswork based on experience. There is no magic to astrology, no telepathy, no magic crystal ball with which to look into the future. There are simply patterns that have a certain probability of repeating themselves at certain times in the cycle based on past observation. IF you understand those cycles, you can make pretty damned good guesses.
The BEST and STRONGEST variety of astrology, in my opinion, is humanistic astrology.
Humanistic astrology doesn't concern itself with the future so much as the present. Humanistic astrology attempts to help people make sense of all of the incomprehensible things that the humans in our lives do.
When your Cancer lover tells you all about this great idea that she has and how she needs you to get everything ready and make the calls... Slow down. She'll probably lose interest in the idea by tomorrow or the next day.
This is useful information. Since the people in our lives are the source of 80 - 90% of the headaches and unpredictability we face each day..wouldn't it be nice to have SOME sort of information that might put human lunacy into perspective?
Humanistic Astrology is that information.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Someone posted this link in your other astrology page:
http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html
Tell me what's wrong with that study. My guess is that you'll say the astrologers they used were not "real" astrologers.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
"The most 'progressive' astrologers regard astrology as a counselling skill. To them the horoscope is only a therapeutic tool and not a source of reliable information."
From the above study. I think that astrology can be a tool for introspection. But so can a fortune cookie.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
you'll find a dear_carl_sagan letter in which I outline a reasonable test which was NOT designed by scientists who then asked astrologers to go through the motions of their uneducated scenarios.
What absolutely tickles me silly about THOSE cases where real astrologers were asked to perform tasks set up by scientists is that the scientists USED the astrologers to lend credibility to their research. You gotta admit, that's pretty damned hilarious from either side of the debate. : )
Have an astrologer design a test based on the ACTUAL, not perceived claims of astrology. Then have scientists look at the test to determine if it demonstrates the premise sufficiently, not to meet scientific standards for CERTAINTY, but LIKELIHOOD. (Which would then almost certainly open up the field to further research.)
I believe I could design such a test AND perform at a level sufficiently ABOVE the odds to meet the demands of MOST skeptics (notwithstanding the hardest headed of you.) My friends use it as a friggin parlor trick for gawd sake. "Hey...hey...tell daf yer birthday. You gotta hear this, he'll blow your mind."
Yes, yes it probably will the first time you hear it. After a few times hearing me say the same things to the same Sun signs, you'll understand that I'm not doing anything mindblowing at all. I'm just repeating what I've observed about the various Sun sign influences (not just what I've read...what I've observed.) Since my observations don't change too drastically as I roll along through this fascinating study, the words I say and the things I describe don't change much from Leo to Leo or from Cancer to Cancer. Anyone can do it really. It's that simple.
But the next misguided annoyance that tells me how general it is to say that Virgo people will often absentmindedly pick the lint and fuzz off the sweaters of those they love will be summarily ignored.
How in love with your belief system do you have to be to hold such an unreasonable perspective?
Go ahead Virgos...much as you may hate to for skepticism of your own. Pipe in. Catch yerself picking fuzz off of clothes?
See this is what I'm talking about. I don't need some lab rat with a clipboard and pen to tell me that an insight like that is NOT general and that if it holds water, it's useful.
If my own eyes, ears and experience have shown me that these insights are true, and if I am able to show OTHERS that they are...I'm sorry, what do I need the consensus of a bunch of eggheads competing for accolades and research grants for?
TANGENT
Has anyone but me noticed how truly useless scientists are getting these days? Most of the research they do goes into putting more profit in the accounts of the corporations. It's no WONDER they are so up in arms about anything that disagrees with them.
This goes back to something I said about the academic artisan community...hmm what was it? Something about them acting all snooty and self important because they don't want anyone to discover that they are marginally useful to society at best.
Seems to me, that if yer a scientist, there's no money in researching astrology..least not unless yer gunna come out with a negative conclusion.
You could probably find a couple of fat cats in some men's club somewhere that are also diehard skeptics who would love some more ammo. And of course you could probably find a rich astrology buff too, but the minute you came out with your research, it would make every other scientist look like they were wrong (heaven forbid), and so the entire academic scientific community (read "the predominantly better than you" set) would TURN on you if you came up with anything favorable. (Effectively ending your career because a bunch of children with degrees don't want their delicate egos to be bruised. Animals.)
Wouldn't be worth it taking THOSE sponsors...now would it?
Man this could get really good. If you think about it...the scientific community is either in the pocket of...the rich...the corporations (owned by the rich)...or the governments..(owned by the corporations...which are owned by the rich)...kinda like the academic ART community!!! I mean, I couldn't afford to sponsor a scientist except myself..and then only in the laboratory of life. How about anyone else? You got the money to sponsor a scientist.
There's somethign there. Hmmm...yea this has been discussed before, but the snooty scientists like to push it under the rug or call people that mention it a Marxist..
Seems there was a time when the guys with the big money were ROYALS, right? Kings and Dukes and what-not? Didn't we always find the scientists and the artists mulling around the palace begging for an allowance?
Now its not the royals anymore..its whoever has the big bucks in THIS system. Like starving pigeons moving to wherever the breadcrumbs are thickest.
Yes I see it now. LAP dogs both. OH geezus...we can go around til the cows come home now and I dont think I'll ever have the same respect for the establishment that I thought I once might have had. Ewwwww. I feel dirty for respecting them...they were money grubbers with no other way to get funds except by sucking up to the man, and I didn't see it. I looked UP to them. Niiice.
That was fun. (And we'll do that research whenever you like. I already know the stuff works. You're the one that needs the proof so YOU sponsor the test. And we'll do it as many times as you need to satisfy an overactive faith in established beliefs. Fair nuff?)
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
Better yet. Why don't I give you a simple rule of thumb for doing astrology research the RIGHT way? Then you can design your OWN Sun sign test.
Here you go:
daffy's_astrology_test_for_skeptics
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
One other thing I'd like to point out:
Am I the only one that notices that the skeptics are always quoting someone else? It's rarely if EVER a quote from their own experience...ever notice that? I mean, if you REALLY, REALLY look at it VERY, VERY carefully what you'll notice is that the reason they're putting forth these opinions in the form of quotes or rehashed scietific establishment crap has to do with faith, superstition and idol worship.
I'm not kidding. That's right, these empirical types...well hell they've become as bad as the savages and voodoo doctors that they claim they replaced. No doubt about it. Here...let me show you the REAL motivation behind those quotes:
The skeptics show us their quotes and their clippings from esteemed scientists because they have FAITH in the scientific establishment...wrong or right.
They believe things that aren't necessarily true (and they don't even consider things that aren't necessarily untrue) based on a SUPERSTITIOUS belief that the scientific establishment is infallible, or close to infallible.
The fact that ENORMOUS blunders have been made and will continue to be made by the scientific community as a whole...does nothing to dissuade them from clinging to its truths like they were gods.
Which makes the scientists and the scientific establishment their IDOLS.
Haven't you seen the look on a person's face when he shows you something that he's sure will convince you or prove his point? That "Ha! I got you now!" look.
Well imagine that on the face of these skeptics as they come up with their new quote from some guy who neither one of us really knows or knows whether or not is qualified to be an expert on anything.
Now understand, to them, this is like AMMO. They don't realize that they are just relating someone else's ideas to me. That's what's SO funny and at the same time sad about this bizarre dance of the living brainwashed intellectuals.
Most of them really think they have an opinion even though they're just recycling some stupid sh*t they read were taught or told.
They didn't read it and go out and...test it...experiment with it. No they just heard it and put it into their stash of intellectual ammo. Fluff and stuff...like Winnie the Pooh right?
No these skeptics are ARMCHAIR scientists. They are mouthpieces for whatever the super-duper authoritative someone that who knows who the hell it is said. And that's good enough for them. There's the test up above..I dare you. I double DOG dare you.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Okay, but what specifically was wrong with that study? Subjects gave their dates and places of birth and then answered a series of personal questions, then the astrologers attempted to match the subjects to their personality profiles based on what the principles of astrology said their personal characteristics should have been. The astrologers failed. So, without the rambling, if possible, tell me what could be wrong with this study?
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
The study you propose to the deceased Carl Sagan sounds like the above study that I keep referencing. In that study, participants, after supplying their birth time, date, and place, answered a series of questions. The astrologers who participated were then allowed to ask the subjects additional questions. And the astrologers couldn't match the subjects to the characteristics that they were supposed to have according to astrology.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
?x
|
i_feel_like_a_child
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
whats wrong with it is that not everyone can adequately mix unlike influences. It's difficult. I Can't do it. Not well anyhow. I mean I have a nice little intuitional gift that helps, but no, not really accurately. However when you select individuals whose primary planets are in the same sign as the Sun. It amplifies the effect. It removes much of the necessity for resolving conflicting symbols (which is guesswork unless you are a VERY dedicated, very intelligent (and quite often VERY OLD) astrologer.)
That's why, although I can't specifically say what went wrong with the study without looking at the data, I can say that it had a lot stacked against it right up front. Astrology is HARD, and just as in many professions, there are more that are willing than are capable. If they redid the study, using the single criterion from daffy's_astrology_test_for_skeptics, the results would be astounding. Absolutely. But see...you don't have to wait for them to do the study. You can do what I did..start asking people what their birthday is...then start watching them. Don't try to notice how they differ...notice how they are the same. The pieces should start popping out at you if yer really, really patient and observant. It's not a waste of time. In fact, it is the single easiest thing in the world to do..people appreciate it when you talk to them. At the end, you will have a tool that will help you understand the single most frustrating and unpredictable factor in the human experience...the people.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
The Heretic
|
INTUITION IS A CREATIVE PROCESS. IT IS A SYNTHESIS, A CONSTRUCT. IT IS INTERPRETIVE. I SEE IT AS CLOSER TO AN ARTFORM, SAY FICTION, THAN EVEN ONE OF THE SO CALLED SOFT SCIENCES. IF IT IS STATISTICAL IN NATURE, CAN A COMPUTER BE TAUGHT TO DO IT? IF NOT, THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE VOODO.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
But observing people after knowing their date of birth is a poor substitute for a study like the one above.
Surely you are aware that one would be biased by knowing what traits he was "supposed to be" observing in individuals based on their birth data and their sign. For instance, if astrology tells me that an individual is supposed to be secretive, I might make too much of the instances where that individual acted secretively and too little of the instances where that individual acted non-secretively.
That's why studies like the above are important.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
Look. You say its a poor substitute. I say yer asking for magic when all I have is a few tricks that can be helpful which are based on some weird natural principle. Yea...hell YEA! That would be great! If I could just walk up and tell what sign they are. I've been working on it. There are physical traits as well. But it's still such a crapshoot for me. I've only been at it for 6 years. There are astrologers who have been at it for 60. I read about a few astrologers that could do it. Very few. It takes both practice, observation and natural ability. I really wish I could show you what I've seen and know. But obviously I can't and perhaps that's my failing as a writer.
Understand that this "guess the sign from a random encounter thing" it's just not what I can offer you at this point in my understanding of astrology.
I thought it was good enough that I was offering you some concrete things that you could try. Remember..once you start investigating..you're an amateur astrologer. Don't start out with experiments that not even advanced astrologers could pull off. Give yourselves and the poor astrologers a break. Shoot for the answer to the question: Is there SOMETHING here?
Just that should be enough to encourage a few talented individuals to invest their lives (which is what would be required) to determine what is real and what is fallacy and to settle the question once and for all about what astrology can offer the human race, and what it cannot.
Heretic - Yes. A Computer can be programmed to do a very good interpretation of a person's chart...in plain English. The name of the program is Solarfire by Astrolabe. And yes, I have access to a copy. I wouldn't be here two years later ranting like a loon if I didn't. If you'd like a copy of your own chart interpretation as generated by Solarfire, send your date, time and place of birth. NO NAMES OR OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION PLEASE.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
I guess I failed to address your point about researcher bias. Yes, it is extremely important to avoid researcher bias. But you can't ask of astrology more than the competency level of your astrologers or researchers is capable of delivering. So make sure you design FIRST, an experiment that it is realistically within the reach of just about anyone to do and understand. THEN you put the measures in to reduce or remove researcher bias.
Listen. If I ask a peson if they have a trait, that's not the same as noticing that they have a trait. They will say yes, or they will say no. (Now there is a pitfall there too. Some folks are not as self aware as others. Asking people that are very close to the subjects is often a better strategy, but doesn't really work with the more intimate details that astrology can provide. There are things that astrology can tell you that not even their closest loved ones are aware of.) Researcher bias plays no part because the question was based on the Sun sign, not the person. All Sun signs are asked the same questions as their Sun sign counterparts. That's also why I suggested a way to keep the researchers from actually seeing the test subjects sdo as to reduce visual clues. I thought about it man.
I told you, I'm a man of logic, not a goon a kook or a crystal power freak (not that there's anything wrong with that.)
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Simply: If astrology is so hard to master that no suitable group of astrologers can be found to favorably represent the assertions of astrologers in such a study as "The Astrotest," and if astrology's conclusions are so probablistic and contingent that nothing concrete can ever be said about an individual based solely on simple birth data, then astrology is not worth anyone's time to disprove. It is not worth an afternoon, much less a lifetime.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
So the subjects might not be answering truthfully. The study addresses that point:
"Nine respondents [astrologer, in explaining why they failed] suspected that the questions were not always answered truthfully. Perhaps the subjects had a lack of self-knowledge or tried to present a flattering image of themselves. However, in spite of this potential bias, most questions concerned verifiable facts. There is no reason to assume that the subjects lied about their hobbies or the date of their wedding. Even if all facts were false (including the birth dates), this would not explain why the astrologers failed to demonstrate mutual agreement."
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
And regarding the assertion that astrology tells us things that we don't know about ourselves: Well, since such hidden characteristics cannot be observed, such assertions cannot be disproven.
Here's what the study has to say: "An increasing number of astrologers manage to escape from scientific scrutiny by confining themselves to statements that can not be falsified. They assert that a horoscope can only provide information about our inner life, basic nature, true reality, hidden potential, deepest aspirations, unconscious fears and motives, forgotten trauma's and possibilities for future development. Astrology, they say, gives insight into the meaning and quality of our subjective experiences by locating them within a cosmic frame of reference. It tells us why we are the way we are, it can clarify our problems and help us to find solutions - but it can not predict our behaviour. Astrological interpretations do not even necessarily fit with the introspection by the person involved, so nothing can prove them wrong."
So one would have to take such assertions on faith. But why would anyone give their faith to such a belief in the context of astrology's failure to prove it's testable claims?
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
I never said that no suitable group of researchers or astrologers could be found. I simply asked that you lower the level of competency required to perform the experiment so that an adequate pool of talent would exist.
If you do what I suggest (which I'm trying to figure out why you keep arguing against), and make sure the planets are in the same sign as the Sun, you'll have all sorts of researchers OR asrtologers that could come up with perfectly acceptable questionaires. Because then, instead of the subjects being a mix mosh of all signs, they would be more closely representative of their own Sun sign group and it's corresponding traits.
When you INSIST that we do it YOUR way or THEIR way, in both cases you're setting up unrealistic expectations. You don't know what astrology is let alone what it has to offer and expect that you have the ability to judge what is an experiment with realistic expectations?
For me, this simply demonstrates why you are so vehemetly opposed to the notion of astrology being real...you have heard about an astrology that either does not exist or represents only the outer limits of what can be done by gifted, talented, dedicated experienced individuals.
It is very logical that you do not believe in a type of astrology which does not exist. I don't really know of an astrology that meets your expectations either. Sorry. Guess once again, you were misinformed.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
Ok first off, mr usc whatever...we aren't having a debate. Get that through your thick, trying-to-piss-on my-leg skull. I don't like debating and I really don't like debating with people that don't read what I write, causing me to repeat myself. It annoys me. Are you hard of seeing? I know from where I speak and you are trying to posture with me. Ooo ooo...ahh ahhh ooo ooo ooo. That's ape speak for please take a step back I'm not interested in sparring with you Brutus.
I will ask you to go back and read what I wrote. I did not say it told us stuff we don't know about ourselves. I said it could tell us things that a person's closest LOVED ones didn't know about them. When I tell a Libran that he will jump into other people's shoes, he knows what I mean. His mother may not even know that. She may just see him as an empathetic guy. (Which Librans can be, they can also be emotionally aloof.)
If you would like to continue to rear your stupid antlers at me, I'd appreciate it if you'd just hitch yerself up to the post outside and stop trying to bring it.
If you were reading (read: listening) we could have a discussion. You are scanning (read: reading what you want to read.) F*** you. You are wasting my time.
Fun! : )
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
I'm not going to do my own study. Others have done studies, the results of which you and other astrologers have not convincingly challenged. Moreover, you can't point me to any credible study that proves astrology's claims. To do my own study, in the absence of either of the above, would not be worth my time. Frankly, arguing with you has not been worth my time, either, which is why I'm going to cut my losses right now.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
see also: daffy's_astrology_test_for_skeptics
: ) Thank you for your cooperation.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
I wrote my last response before reading your last response, so I'd like to add this small bit to my too civil valediction: Fuck you, pal (without the apostrophes). You're the one wasting your own time with this shit. You'd have probably been better off getting some kind of degree with the 6 years you've wasted on astrology. Now I'm going to go back to editing law journal citations, which, while tedious, is not as tedious as conversing with you while resisting the urge to call you a whack-job douchebag fucktard.
Now sir, please do carry on trolling Blather with your various post-whoring activities.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
egger
|
makes a shopping list
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
Sorry to have gotten less than tactful, usc. Your passion for the law must be great. It comes out in your manner of conversing. Don't think that I don't have a great amount of respect for your intelligence. I just didn't feel like going on all night. I have poems to collect, and you obviously have a lot to say on the subject, as do I. We probably both had better things to do. Just wanted to say, I'm sorry, no hard feelings and it wasn't a reflection on you personally. Just an abrupt ending for dramatic purposes.
(Please don't attack. I'm a poor defenseless little guy who thinks you're incredibily literate! Would you like to share my two for one Six flags Coke can with me? My wife hates scary rides. : )
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
dB
|
all's well that ends well... I guess.
nice to see you guys haven't redecorated.
|
051117
|
| |
... |
|
|
a skeptic
|
Phrenology.
Electronic voice phenomenon.
Faith healing.
Magnet therapy.
Pyramid power.
The Tarot.
|
060729
|
