Authored by: cgrotke on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 08:56 AM GMT+5

Does the moon have an effect on things here?

Maybe extrapolate from there.

Authored by: Latent on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 11:46 AM GMT+5

Having grown up in a household with a parent who was a full time pro astrologer, I was surrounded by this. It was very mathematical and impressively detailed in his execution. Charts detailing peoples star signs, those of specific events in the past and future, and more.

In high school I do remember one stament I made, which caused some grumpiness in the household. This parent was talking about what a hard week it was going to be next week for some very specific astrological reasons. And I asked "Hey, have you ever heard of a self-fullfilling prophecy?" ;-)

Yes, the moon effects water quite clearly, and since we are mostly water, etc. Yep. And all the other planets, must have a diminished but still existant gravitational effect on us right?

Of course, the Sun has a MUCH bigger gravitational pull on us (and the moon), and highly variable field - no single predictable pattern like the moons rotation, but MUCH more powerful. We need real "Sun Signs" based on magnetic scans of the sun!

Anyways, anything I can say has been said much more clearly than I'm capable of by others. Here is an excerpt from: http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

Defenders of astrology are fond of noting that ‘the length of a woman’s menstrual cycle corresponds to the phases of the moon’ and ‘the gravitational fields of the sun and moon are strong enough to cause the rising and falling of tides on Earth.’ If the moon can affect the tides, then surely the moon can affect a person. But what is the analog to the tides in a person? We are reminded that humans begin life in an amniotic sea and the human body is 70 percent water. If oysters open and close their shells in accordance with the tides, which flow in accordance with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces of the sun and moon, and humans are full of water, then isn’t it obvious that the moon must influence humans as well? It may be obvious to some, but the evidence for these lunar effects is lacking.

Astrologers emphasize the importance of the positions of the sun, moon, planets, etc., at the time of birth. However, the birthing process isn’t instantaneous. There is no single moment that a person is born. The fact that some official somewhere writes down a time of birth is irrelevant. Do they pick the moment the water breaks? The moment the first dilation occurs? When the first hair or toenail peeks through? When the last toenail or hair passes the last millimeter of the vagina? When the umbilical cord is cut? When the first breath is taken? Or does birth occur at the moment a physician or nurse looks at a clock to note the time of birth?

Why are the initial conditions more important than all subsequent conditions for one’s personality and traits? Why is the moment of birth chosen as the significant moment rather than the moment of conception? Why aren’t other initial conditions such as one’s mother’s health, the delivery place conditions, forceps, bright lights, dim room, back seat of a car, etc., more important than whether Mars is ascending, descending, culminating, or fulminating? Why isn’t the planet Earth—the closest large object to us in our solar system--considered a major influence on who we are and what we become? Other than the sun and the moon and an occasional passing comet or asteroid, most planetary objects are so distant from us that any influences they might have on anything on our planet are likely to be wiped out by the influences of other things here on earth.

No one would claim that in order to grasp the effect of the moon on the tides or potatoes one must understand initial conditions of the Singularity before the Big Bang, or the positions of the stars and planets at the time the potato was harvested. If you want to know what tomorrow’s low tide will be you do not need to know where the moon was when the first ocean or river was formed, or whether the ocean came first and then the moon, or vice-versa. Initial conditions are less important than present conditions to understanding current effects on rivers and vegetables. If this is true for the tides and plants, why wouldn’t it be true for people?

Finally, there are those who defend astrology by pointing out how accurate professional horoscopes are. Astrology “works,” it is said, but what does that mean? Basically, to say astrology works means that there are a lot of satisfied customers and one can shoehorn any event to fit a chart. It does not mean that astrology is accurate in predicting human behavior or events to a degree significantly greater than mere chance. There are many satisfied customers who believe that their horoscope accurately describes them and that their astrologer has given them good advice. Such evidence does not prove astrology so much as it demonstrates the Forer effect, and confirmation bias. Good astrologers give good advice, but that does not validate astrology. There have been several studies that have shown that people will use selective thinking to make any chart they are given fit their preconceived notions about themselves and their charts. Many of the claims made about signs and personalities are vague and would fit many people under many different signs. Even professional astrologers, most of whom have nothing but disdain for sun sign astrology, can’t pick out a correct horoscope reading at better than a chance rate. Yet, astrology continues to maintain its popularity, despite the fact that there is scarcely a shred of scientific evidence in its favor. Even the former First Lady of the United States, Nancy Reagan, and her husband, Ronald, consulted an astrologer while he was the leader of the free world, demonstrating once again that astrologers have more influence than the stars do.

-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

Again, there is a lot more at: http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

But please, believe anything you want. Just beware the ''lie'' in the middle of the very word "believe", and be aware that the mind controls the body, and perception filters the "results" of that mental control even futher!

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 10:37 AM GMT+5

Latent,

I enjoyed reading your post especially the interaction you described regarding your "self fufilling prohecy" quote.

It reminds me of the time my family friend tried to cure my cold with homeopathy.

This is a tale of the inverse of the "self fufilling prophecy."

The first week she tried one remedy, Pulsitilla, because my symptons appeared to resemble those listed as being indicative for this remedy.

The second week, I still had a cold, and she tried some other remedy, (Rus tox ? I don't remember).

Finally in my third week of having cold symptoms, she tried Arnica (I think it was) and my cold went away.

My well meaning and loving helper was impressed that she had finally found the right remedy.

I later asked her how frequently colds last that long anyway, and if maybe I was about done with the cold anyway, and maybe hadn't been helped by the remedy at all.

Nothing doing. In fact, I not only insulted her, (which was not my heart felt desire), but also challenged a belief system that might have been doing her some good.

A placebo only works if you beleive in it, for one thing, and two, I think that religous belief helps people in ways that are hard to understand and yet none the less real. Also, I almost stole from her her happiness in having helped cure me. So what good was I doing, really?

Anyway, I still have not resolved how to communicate my disagreement with "foo faa." Silence seems minorly wrong, complicitly dishonest, and full exposition seems unnecesary and somewhat minorly destructive.


With all that being said, doesn't seem likely that Mt Wantastiquest exerts more influence than the random groups of stars that appear to make up the "constelation Virgo" ?

I am thinking of saying, when people ask, that my baby was born under the sign of Wantastiquet.

Hee Hee Hee, Har har har, tee hee hee !


Rolf

Authored by: Genie on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 09:19 PM GMT+5

Actually, the school (Form School) of Feng Shui-ers would have something to say about the presence of Mt. Wantastiquet to our East and your child.

Genie

---
Wonders Never Cease.

Authored by: Biz Dana on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 03:55 PM GMT+5

Halloween is the best birthday any American child could ask for. So far no one has ruined this holiday. My childhood birthday parties were always well-attended even on weeknights. The activities were clear - no parent worried what was going on that night and many parents helped my parents with the transportation and chaperoning. As I got older it was always a fun day - many places let employees dress up that day. Evenings always have some sort of activity, costume parties, dances, Horribles Parade, etc. And the day of the week doesn't affect the celebratory feeling.

Shoot for 10/31/06.

People rarely forget your birthday. BOO!!!!!!

Authored by: signifyingsimian on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 09:07 AM GMT+5

Rolf, would you mind telling us what your sign is?

You don't also happen to know your rising sign and your moon sign, do you?

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 09:11 AM GMT+5

Rolf,

I completely agree with you on this one. I don't think you can divide
the town into two boxes, and probably you didn't mean that literally.
But this whole "late sixties/early seventies" thing is unfortunately a
core cultural artifact with many people here, even if many of them
are too young to have lived or remembered any of it. (cue the joke: if
you remember the sixties, you didn't do anything--har har)
Horoscopes were big in the sixties. Actually even the housewife set
went for them, as I seem to remember Linda Goodman's "Sun Signs"
on people's shelves, as well as the little Dell paperbacks in the
grocery stores that you could pick up. I was into this stuff when I was
a little kid, too young to know better. Then I got a telescope and
learned a little about astronomy. The good thing about being out here
is that in most places the light pollution is so low that you can actually
get a good bead on the constellations and planets at night.

As for the superstitious folks, I've learned that you just can't argue
with them over their beliefs. It's a religion to them. But if you care
to, go to Google Videos and type in "Richard Dawkins and the Teapot
Atheists". Dawkins is a really cool guy!

Authored by: Stevil on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 09:36 AM GMT+5

I think the comment about the late 1960s was a quote from Dennis Hopper who said something like, "If you claim to remember the 60s, you weren't there." Robin Williams had a follow up; "And if you claim to remember the 1970s, you didn't have any fun."

---
"If you start to take Vienna -- take Vienna." -- Napoleon

Authored by: Rolf on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 11:44 AM GMT+5

Buddy,

No, I did not really mean that there are a mere two communities, I was just speaking poetically, and not very well.

Rolf

Authored by: Genie on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 08:18 PM GMT+5

Is prejudice a branch of superstition, Rolf?

Some deer hunters are also artists. My dad was both.

I learned to shoot guns in my early teens. Hey, you never know when you might need a good meal. I even went to Conservation Camp near Canada where I learned all about deer and why it is good and necessary to shoot them when I was 14, We studied guns and had shooting competitions. All girls at this camp. Of course we learned about trees, too.

I didn't go to the "University of Brattleboro," and I turned out to be on the artsy side. Hmmmmmmm.

I find that prejudice goes both ways in this town. Arrogance is a powerful force, just as powerful as a gun.

Genie






---
Wonders Never Cease.

Authored by: signifyingsimian on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 08:59 PM GMT+5

Genie, you seem to get the reference to the University of Brattleboro. Could you explain it to me, quick while Rolf is not paying attention.

I had the feeling that when he asked me if I had gone to the University of Brattleboro, something felt odd about that question, like if I would answer it, it might be like stepping in dog sh-t.

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 06:44 AM GMT+5

Sorry,

The joke was obscure enough to be mis construed, which was my fault as a writer, not yours as a reader.


The University of Brattleboro comment was a reference to my posts in the thread about Donut Park, which were signed by Ima Wag, the Dean of the University,

and by Profesor Yum Yum, who was going to bake some donuts for the park ceremony. We also had an archeology department that was concerned that Pliny Park was being built on top of a pre-Abenaki donut burial site.
(In fact, some of the donuts had Viking runes on them)

As it is, we didn't make any edible donuts, just clay ones that we buried in the park, as a lark, before the site was cemented over.

Thus, when I asked if you had gone to Brattlleboro University, I was trying to extend a friendly oh, you are a wag, jokester too, handshake. That was all.

No dog poo stepping in feeling was intended.

Authored by: signifyingsimian on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:20 AM GMT+5

The donuts were made of clay? No wonder! I tried to eat one. I didn't realize it was made of clay: I thought it was ruined.

I guess I overreacted to the University of Brattleboro comment. You see, my uncle Hairy signed up there once to enter their psychology undergraduate program. But they locked him in a cage and did experiments on him involving electric shocks. So the University of Brattleboro is a sensitive subject for everyone in our family.

Anyway, Hairy was able to play some kind of trick on the professor, which ended up with their trading places. After training the professor to distinguish between left and right (the equipment was designed in such a way that it was impossible to use it to teach right from wrong) Uncle Hairy walked out.

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 10:15 AM GMT+5

I have checked with the head of the Psychology Department about this alleged incident,

and also with the History Department.

I am sad to say that by and large, I can confirm your Unlce Hairy's story.

At that time in the Universtiy's history, there was no formal policy forbidding cruelty. Some unscrupulous faculty memebers took advantage of this lack of foresight on the part of the administrators, and employed cruelty and excessively caustic sarcasm in their humor.

In point of fact, there was no experiment, it was all an elaborate hoax, designed in part to get "funny video"and I am sorry.

If you are interested in suing the University, we make money off the videos, which are available for rent at First Run Video, under the title

"Harrying Hairy: Fun with fires and wires"

Now, I do have to admit something. All of the people who tormented your uncle (about 23 faculty members were involved) were, curiously, born on
March 24 at 5:14 PM. I have no idea what sign this is, but sure someone must, and can explain the import of this day and time.

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 06:59 AM GMT+5

Why did I title this post

"Twenty five or so Brattleboros" ?

Why, in this same post, did I state that my use of the term "deer hunting circle versus artsy circle" was peotic and badly written?

From these statements, what might we infer from the rigidity with which I hold these circles to be non-overlapping ?

As for the "Univesrity of Brattleboro" that was a friendly hello to the person I was writing it to. The University is open to all goofballs interested in creating socially staged harmless and friendly gags and good clean fun, regarldess of height, hair color or beleif in astrology. Our next event is the floating of the Jack o Lanterns down the Connecticut. This will be the seventh annual pumpkin float.

While there is a certain feeling of power and fun embedded in accusing people of being prejudiced, it borders on incivility when done in a reckless fashion, and with little evidence.

However, everyone is hasty sometimes, myself most certainly included.

Peace,

Rolf

Authored by: annikee on Saturday, August 19 2006 @ 11:30 AM GMT+5

Congrats, Rolf. I didn't know you were pregnant!
If your baby's coming after Oct 22 or so, it'll be a Scorpio. You'll have your hands full. Local Scorpios I know: DJ Cam of rfb and Joe Crompton, who have the same b'day, Oct 29. Lots of others who'd rather not be mentioned, I'm sure..they are Scorpios, afterall.
Most folk into astrology don't put the emphasis on sun signs, though. There's a lot more to it- your rising sign, moon, mercury, venus, mars, etc. and how each fall in your natal chart and the synthesis of it all. It's interesting, but I'm not sure what it all means and I've been looking into it for 30 years.
Good luck with the bambino.
p.s. Constellation donut is just directly above the Big Dipper

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Rolf on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 10:39 AM GMT+5

Thanks for the congratulations.

I can't beleive the baby will be here soo soon.

Authored by: annikee on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 12:44 PM GMT+5

I don't think I know your wife, but I'm sure you'll be a great daddy. What an adventure!

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 11:29 AM GMT+5

Genie,

I hear you on the bias argument, but I don't think Rolf meant any
harm or bias when he said what he said. Guns are a part of the rural
culture that is Vermont. And venison tastes pretty good. Besides, if
we don't have natural predators, I would rather have people like your
family culling some of the deer herds each year than have to contend
with an overrun deer population jumping all over roads at night.

My gripe with people who are unscientific is that their arguments are
based on faith and emotional superstition, and there isn't any peer-
review or system whereby the ideas can be checked by reason. I'm a
big fan of the Age of Reason, by the way. Like democracy, it has its
flaws (such as academic 'herd' mentality), but it appears to be the
best system we have for understanding how things work in the natural
and physical world. But Rolf makes a good point when he says that he
doesn't want to trample on others' belief systems and the inherent
placebo effect that goes on with some cures. To say however that
science is just another form of religion (which I've had thrown at me
from time to time) to me doesn't make sense, because science isn't
one voice, and religion doesn't have peer review and an open arena
for testing of hypotheses. Religious belief just isn't logical; it doesn't
allow for testing or criticism. Bad things are done countless times in
history in the name of science and reason, such as more "efficient"
killing systems and machinery, or pesticides, or unethical things that
cause harm, but like capitalism is just a tool for trade and wealth
generation, science by itself cannot run things, it's just a system or
tool for solving problems or gaining an understanding of things. An
enlightened populace with democratic checks and balances would
ensure that the science and capital aren't abused by elites. Currently
the USA in particular does not have an enlightened mass of citizenry
and this is where the problems come in. A better, more vigorous
public education system that isn't tainted by religion or ramped up
nationalist propoganda is what this country needs, in order for people
to have more equal say in the system.

Authored by: symtmaticsimian on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM GMT+5

As much as I hate killing, I guess I have to admit that Buddy Love has a good point about the need to cull the herd, due to overpopulation and a lack of natural preditors.

My dad is an avid hunter, and for years, he has stressed to us that it is not cruel to shoot humans, it is actually necessary to help them as a species. And, after all, the meat is not just pretty good: It is delicious!

Did I ever tell you about my dad's recipe for leg of child? Or human being roasted on a spit, over an open fire? Mmmmm! I can taste it now! Oh, and his barbecued baby with the special sauce! Everyone should try it. The taste of human flesh is so good, that, whatever biases you may have had, as soon as you taste it, I guarantee you'll get over any "ethical" qualms! And the best part is knowing that culling is a good deed -- making things better for the human race as a whole.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:05 AM GMT+5

When you kill a plant, it screams. Here was this head of lettuce,
growing
in the garden trying to get some sun, and you come along to chop the
life out of it, or barring that, maim the poor thing by tearing off its
leaves.

My advice to you: don't eat, because everything organic comes from a
food chain. You wouldn't want to be a part of all that...<gasp> killing!

But, next time I see my friend the lion, I'll tell him that elands and
gazelles are murder <g>.

Love,
Buddy

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 01:13 PM GMT+5

Arrrggghhh! I can't go into this stuff too much or I'll go blind with rage and self-pity! ;-) Suffice to say that my very marriage has been threatened by my daring to question Homeopathy!

But, you know. I promise I can take an entire bottle of Homeopathic sleeping pills and if anything, get a buzz off all the sugar in them. But if a member of my family did that? Not only would it knock them out, it might make them sick, I can even believe it could kill them! Our brains are powerful! And there is nothing wrong with that, I envy the belief in fact! Ocean water generally contains as much of the "active" ingredient per OZ as the higher "X" level ("potency") Homeopathic pills. It would be much cheaper for me to get medicine this way, if I could make myself believe! But my mind doesn't work that way, it has to be convinced, I'm not good at looking at a white wall and saying "Brain, you are wrong - that wall isn't white - its BLUE"! Again, I envy somebody who can do this. I can't.

We humans are not good at many things, but we are pretty good at physics, we can look inside atoms. And sorry, substances do NOT get more "potent" as you dilute them! (Note there is a BIG difference between HERBAL and HOMEOPATHIC - herbal medications are drugs. Homeopathic medicines are faith based).

Ok, see! Sore subject I started ranting anyways! <g> My bottom line is that I've nothing against it all as long as: (1) no children suffer if they are really at risk and fairy dust is substituted for medication that could help them; and (2) Our already absurdly unfair and overburdened healthcare/insurance/legal system doesn't get hammered further down by this stuff getting included!

Authored by: annikee on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 01:46 PM GMT+5

In my experience, herbal drugs work some of the time. Homeopathy, which is supposed to assuage ailments by doing something along the lines of immitating the thing you have a problem with, don't.
I can't help it if I believe in chemistry. It works for me.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:09 PM GMT+5

I agree, and can further refine my statement about "Herbal" meaning actually chemically active but naturally/plant produced orgins. 99% of miracle "herbal" cures are also junk. But there are of course herbs that have very powerful effects from being astringints, to anti-convulsives, to pain killers . . . to of course killing you for that matter. We have only been synthesizing entirely new classes of chemicals/drugs for a pretty short amount of time. Many current doctor prescribed pharmeceuticals are still refined from plant sources, and many synthesized ones are simply using factory processes to replicate naturally occuring molecules.

One of a million examples would be Belladonna. A great source for atropine and other chemicals with various medical uses. But also can make you sick or kill you. In a herbal usage I'd be very careful with this stuff, it has been used by mystics for peaceful purposes, quacks to make $ with, and true sicko's like the Manson gang for its hallucinatory effects. Stuff to be very careful with if you used it at all. But if it was put in a homeopathic usage? I'll put a whole bottle in my coffee to sweeten it, no other effect would be present (for me that is, for a beLIEver, perhaps it would make them sick in that quantity!)

And again, Belladonna is just one of nearly endless such plants in nature.

Authored by: Linaelin on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:17 PM GMT+5

I've heard that datura is helpful for a boring life.

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:30 PM GMT+5

Having grown up reading Carlos Castaneda, I've long heard the same thing. And never had the opportunity to try it, but have found life extremely non-boring in spite of this.

How about you Linaelin, the Datura keep it interesting for you stud? ;-)

Authored by: Linaelin on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:36 PM GMT+5

You might try datura as you do belladonna in the morning: "a whole bottle
in [your] coffee to sweeten it, no other effect would be present (for you
that is, for a beLIEver).

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:44 PM GMT+5

Not sure what I said to make you so angry that you would suggest what you think is a suicide (or murder, if you suggested it?) technique.

You clearly don't understand how homeopathic "medicine" is produced. The point is you could put arsnic, uranium or anything else in a higher "X" homeopathic pill because there will be *few if any* of the actual substance LEFT in the pill.

So sure, a whole bottle of homeopathic datura would indeed do exactly the same as a whole bottle of homeopathic belladonna, or arnica, or etc!

Authored by: ZAM on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:41 AM GMT+5

"We humans are not good at many things, but we are pretty good at physics, we can look inside atoms. And sorry, substances do NOT get more "potent" as you dilute them! (Note there is a BIG difference between HERBAL and HOMEOPATHIC - herbal medications are drugs. Homeopathic medicines are faith based)."

It's clear that you are out of touch with American values. Why must you look down your nose at our faith? There's nothing proven in science anyway.

This message has been brought to you by veterans, puppies, and fetuses for a better America, reminding you that Science is nothing but witchcraft with a better name. Go America.

Authored by: Sid on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:37 PM GMT+5

I agree that any benefit attributable to homeopathy is purely a placebo effect.

However, every double-blind study has shown that homeopathy is significantly more efficacious -- by far -- than any other placebo.

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 08:50 PM GMT+5

Sid, again, each to their own . . . but:

>>However, every double-blind study has shown that homeopathy is significantly more efficacious -- by far -- than any other placebo.<<

That is very wrong. Just to pick one of the more recent big studies from one of the top medical journals on the planet, Lancet:

"Homeopathy, favoured medical remedy of the royal family for generations and hugely popular in the UK, has an effect but only in the mind, according to a major study published in a leading medical journal today.

The conclusions of the Lancet analysis are a body blow for proponents of homeopathy, which has been around for 250 years and has attained cult-like status among its aficionados.

Swiss scientists compared the results of more than 100 trials of homeopathic medicines with the same number of trials of conventional medicines in a whole range of medical conditions, from respiratory infections to surgery. They found that homeopathy had no more than a placebo effect."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1556831,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm

Authored by: cgrotke on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:49 PM GMT+5

Placebos have been known to work for some people some times. Even
though they are nothing, they have the effect of doing something.
They wouldn't be used by hospitals on a regular basis if they did
nothing at all. (I had a job in a hospital once and saw the records of
just how often they were used.)

So, absolutely nothing with no chemical properties whatsoever causes
a mind or body to heal in some way.

Was it the placebo? Was it the person?

And if it helps someone in some way, is it really harming me?

Religion seems to fall into this category for me - a placebo that
indeed helps certain people. Is it a belief in God or really God that
gets one through the day?

Still, I think Buddhists and physicists are closest - the
interconnectedness of all things, made from the same stuff, which is
everything and nothingness at the same time. String theory, M theory,
branes... they are finding that weird stuff is going on, and there is
even more that we don't know than we originally thought.

As a Geometry fan, astrological charts ARE fun to look at. Each is
unique. Sometimes they look even and balanced with symmetrical
triangles, right angles, and squares. Other times they look lopsided,
disjointed, or squished. All inscribed in a circle, with planets used to
plot points along the arc in minutes and degrees.

Regardless of whether one thinks it "means" anything, it is a chart of
where the planets were in relation to one another when you were
born. That should be of interest to any scientist who enjoys
astronomy.

Authored by: Linaelin on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:06 PM GMT+5

There is no possible homeophathic usage for belladonna, there never will
be and there never has been, contrary to what Latent may think. I am
challenging what Latent says that it's "A great source for atropine and
other chemicals with various medical uses". That is a completely
irresponsible comment to make. What medical uses? Belladonna is one
of the most toxic plants there is. Ingesting three berries for a child is
fatal. The symptoms of belladonna poisoning are the same as atropine,
which Latent claims to be medicinal, and include dilated pupils,
tachycardia, hallucinations, blurred vision, loss of balance, a feeling of
flight, staggering, a sense of suffocation, paleness followed by a red rash,
flushing, husky voice, extremely dry throat, constipation, urinary
retention, and confusion. The skin can completely dry out and slough off.
These are plants that you should avoid, that your children should avoid,
and your pets should avoid.

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:17 PM GMT+5

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect: http://www.medicinenet.com/atropine-oral/article.htm

And that just lists a few of the uses for the oral application of Atropine. It is also used in eye drops solution by Opthamologists to dialate eyes: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100002958.html

There are other pharmaceutical uses for Atropine's as well. And yes, it is also a poison. But, and this is going to sting, Arnica is also VERY POISONOUS . . . except of course in a Homeopathic solution, where it is harmless. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/poison/Arnicmo.htm

From that page: "Symptoms: Skin irritation upon contact. After ingestion, heart palpitation, vomiting, drowsiness, shortness of breath, and coma in children.

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:25 PM GMT+5

Oh, and I forgot to add - Belladonna is actually widely used in Homeopathic remedy's. Here is one list: http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/health/Homeo_Homeoix/Belladonna.htm (rimshot please!)

But its safe, don't worry, here is a link to a specific study on homeopathic Belladonna, and it is quite harmless! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11316508&dopt=Citation

Authored by: Lise on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:52 PM GMT+5

I've been using astrology for over 30 years, and while I can't tell you
why planets (not stars) in our solar system (hence only millions of
miles away, not gazbillions) affect human personalities and lives, I
can tell you unequivocally, that in my experience, they do.

Your child will be a Scorpio, as Annikee correctly points out, if she or
he is born after 6:01AM on November 22. Otherwise, she'll be a
Libra. Libra people are very different from Scorpio people. Libras
tend to value balance and harmony, to be artistic or otherwise
concerned with aesthetics and the finer points of life, and to have
other characteristics that I've observed myself such as extreme
stubbornness (not often cited in astrology 'cookbook'-style texts).
Scorpios on the other hand tend to be secretive, skeptical, drawn to
the so-called 'dark side,' and hence, scary to other humans. A lot of
moms who only know so much about astrology, don't want a Scorpio
baby, because they're afraid they'll be weird. That's too bad, because
Scorpios make up a substantial proportion of the world's population
and contribute skills that others lack — because they're Scorpios, and
other people aren't.

This is true of all signs of the Zodiac. All personality types are
essential. There are no 'bad' signs or bad charts for that matter,
because this is a free-will planet and we are allowed to achieve our
potential in whatever way we choose (we are also free not to live up
to our potential, but that's always a shame).

Most parents don't know anything about astrology and that's also
unfortunate. If they did, they would stop trying to get their Libra
Sun, Cancer Rising boy to go out for football. Or whatever ill-starred
aspiration we might have for our kid.

Bottom line is, I do charts and charts don't lie. But that isn't to say
that you can predict specific life details just by looking at a birth
chart. There are a gazbillion ways a person can turn out, and
astrology can only point to issues, tendencies, and styles of
manifestation — it can't come up with an absolute narrative that will
dictate/correspond with a person's actual life. For one thing, no man
is an island — people are often easily influenced by others to be other
than who they were born to be. Parents, teachers, celebrities, friends,
family, preachers, and society at large all contribute to the powerful
outside influences that may cause a Scorpio, for instance, to decide to
keep most of their inner life (thoughts, fears, desires, ideas) to
themself.

The great thing about astrology is that it helps you understand
personality types, and if you really get into it, personality nuances.
For instance, there are people with prominent planets in Libra who
hate controversy, but due to other factors such as planets in Aries,
can't help but start them... There are people who never forget a
slight (Mars in Aries) and people who can slay you with charm (Venus
in Libra), people who must be in a relationship (Moon in the 7th
house) or are driven in their careers (Saturn, Sun, and/or Moon in
10th house). Knowing a person's astrology (as well as your own) can
help you have better relationships, whether it's with your wife, your
boss, your kid or your mother.

Another great thing about astrology is its ability to tell you when to
look out! Readers of iBrattleboro know that certain full moons can
cause people to get a tad edgy... But larger transits can have both
personal and 'transpersonal' effects — in other words, they can affect
individuals as well as whole populations.

One notable example of a big-ass transit was the Saturn-Pluto
opposition which occurred during the early years of this century.
Saturn-Pluto was about (among other things) revelations concerning
people in high places and during this period we had events such as the
Enron and accounting industry scandals, the Catholic pedophilia
scandal, as well as the 'Bush knew'/9/11 revelations that caused large
numbers of people to become disillusioned about relatively large
institutions such as the American accounting and investment industry,
the Catholic Church, and the United States government.

Currently, we are about to be hit with a couple of large astrological
events which we might want to take note of. One is the Saturn-
Neptune opposition, which becomes exact on August 31 and will repeat
(due to the phenomenon of retrograde motion) twice in the first half
of 2007. We don't really know what this will bring, but it's bound to
bring something. Saturn is the planet of structure, boundaries, and
control while Neptune is known for dissolving structure, boundaries and
control mechanisms. And the two are opposed (at 180 degree angles)
to each other.

Also of note: September is an eclipse month this year. We will have
a whopper full moon lunar eclipse in Pisces on September 7 and a new
moon solar eclipse in Virgo on the 22nd. Each are closely aligned with
large change planets, specifically Uranus and Pluto, and like all
eclipses, are likely to have long-term effects.

So all you scoffers, I gotta say, it really doesn't matter what you
think about astrology. For starters, it doesn't need you! And while
it's your loss if you don't want to know enough to see its value, it's
also true that astrology (and other esoteric systems) are not really for
everyone. In many past cultures, astrology was only for the elite. By
the time it got to the masses, it was played as newspaper-style
foretune-telling, which is frankly, of no use to anyone.

This is a long way of saying that astrology is complex stuff but
extremely revealing. And not to beat a dead horse, but I would never
have bothered with it at all if it hadn't worked from the very
beginning. The more I know, the more it works.

Hope this clears things up. ;)

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 02:06 AM GMT+5

Um, October 22...not November 22..they're confused enough...

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Lise on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 10:48 AM GMT+5

Oops, sorry Rolf -- I did get the date wrong. It's actually October 23 at
9:26AM that the Sun goes into Scorpio. I was tranced out looking at the
wrong month... ;)

Authored by: Genie on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 07:58 AM GMT+5

Thank you, Lise. Astrology has been very useful to me in my life.

Scorpios have other wonderful attributes: very loyal and attentive as boyfriends/girlfriends, understanding of psychic and metaphysical phenomenon and aptitudes, and seriously intent about their intentions.


Genie

---
Wonders Never Cease.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:33 AM GMT+5

It's a pseudo-science. The "elites" you are talking about were early
priests in early agrarian societies who used the constellations and
knowledge of seasonal change that could be measured like an early
clock to know when to plant. The personality traits stuff got added on
way later, and all of this predated astronomy, which early scientist/
astronomers like Gallileo (who challenged the ruling dogma of his
day) were punished for daring to do so.

Here's a handy guide I use to separate free thought/scientific inquiry
from pseudo-science and belief systems. You might want to jot this
down, Lise:

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

4) Requires testability

5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses descriptive language

7) Performs controlled experiments

8) Self-correcting

9) Relies on evidence and reason

10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

11) Produces useful knowledge



Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

2) Does not require critical thinking

3) Does not require experimental repeatability

4) Does not require tests

5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses vague language

7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

8) No self-correction

9) Relies on belief and faith

10) Makes absolute claims

11) Produces no useful knowledge

Authored by: Lise on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 10:50 AM GMT+5

Pseudo-science is what science calls things it doesn't want to deal with.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 11:30 AM GMT+5

Wow, that was well reasoned rebuttal!

Maybe next time you could also call the people who ask you to provide proof to back up your assertions "poopyheads" or something similar to show em that you really mean business.

Authored by: The Decider on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 09:55 PM GMT+5

So much truth here, so little time!

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 07:03 AM GMT+5

I haven't seen much truth in this thread, except for Latent's post debunking astrology.

What I can't understand is how many of the same people who accept the general consensus about global climate change (hopefully because of the science and not the politics) are the same ones who reject peer reviewed science when it comes to astrology, homeopathic medicine, the effects and risks of nuclear power, etc.

Science is not a pick and chose proposition and although not suprising, it saddens me to see so many scientific illiterate people on this board.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:16 AM GMT+5

P.R.,

I agree with you. I blame a poor educational system that many
Americans are exposed to. After all, Bush was a C student if that, and
he believes in fundamentalist Christian dogma, is a global warming
science denier, and doesn't see the potential value of stem cell
research (too much evil science in his mind, I guess??).

People (like George Bush) don't like being told that they are wrong.
They get stubborn; they dig in, and then it just becomes an ego/
personality battle, so in the same vein, I guess you cannot argue with
astrology believers, because they don't want to hear the
contradictions, just like Bush.

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 10:56 AM GMT+5

When will you discuss the actual science of things not understood?

For example, I bet that you have seen something that is not there.
Driving down a hot road, you have looked into the distance and seen
water. When you have arrived at that spot, there is no water.

This is not magic. It is science. You have seen something that is not
there in reality. It was there in your mind. This is not pseudo-science,
but you saw water (and not a duck, or a boat... water.)

There was a report from Iraq about a soldier in the hot desert that
said he saw an entire Walmart in which he was certain there would be
cold water for his fellow soldiers. He was going to go in and get them
some, but it was not really there.

I love science. I love math. I love illusions, magic, and all sorts of
stuff. Baking - all science (and delicious). I added a sci-tech section
specific for the scientists here, and hope to read more scientific stories
by local experts.

Current "laws" of physics tell us of 11 dimensions, and that has held
for quite some time. (Mr. Love seems to indicate that he has explored
them fully and can report that there is nothing unusual to report.) I
am looking forward to more exploration and understanding of the
"outer" dimensions as I think that, once understood, will explain
things like gut feelings, deja vu experiences, mirages, and other
things that really do happen but no scientist has yet explained.

Recall Barbara McClintock, scientist now known for pironeering work
discovering DNA. Of course, for years she was shunned as a nut case
'cuz she said she could see this DNA stuff in the corn when she looked
at it, and that led to a lifetime of study to find out that it really was
there.

Many scientists, in fact, have a hunch or feeling that leads them
through years and years of study to prove what they somehow knew
before proving it.



And, and aside, what about that potion that turns you into Buddy
Love? We've seen you in the lab tinkering with it. Humans can't really
change suddenly like that, yet you do. J'accuse d'science-pseudo!

: )

Authored by: SK-B on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 11:25 AM GMT+5

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 02:42 PM GMT+5

What about if someone is a Christian Scientist parent and they say that
their child doesn't need medical care? Isn't this a broader ethical question
about how belief fits into our society?

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 03:03 PM GMT+5

I have never tried homeopathy nor know anything about it.

I try not to take any medicine, if I can avoid it. Eat well, stay active.
When sick, I like my body to suffer a bit, then build up the natural
antibodies so I won't catch whatever it was again. There must be name
for this... the chickenpox technique or something.

I haven't had any major accidents or traumas to date, so I'm lucky in
that regard - nothing broken yet, and nothing requiring ongoing
treatment of any sort. If I did, my approach may change. Rapidly.

Authored by: Latent on Sunday, August 20 2006 @ 10:02 PM GMT+5

When the masters of the house have spoken, its best to be respectful hold ones tongue! I enjoyed the discussion though, and for the record, for most such ideas regarding science/philosophy/humanity, its the *issue* which I feel so strongly towards. Its not personal, regardless of the feeling behind my delivery. I'd like to think everybody else gets passionate about messages and not messengers. But perhaps thats a bit optimistic?

Authored by: SK-B on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 12:48 AM GMT+5

OK, I know better, but I'm going to comment anyway.

I have been to a number of "alternative" practitioners, including a number who claim to use homeopathy. I have been to only one who is a classical homeopathist. She also happens to be an MD, which I guess is unusual.

Homeopathy is very popular in a way which resembles a fad. It seems that every "natural practitioner" wants to hold themselves out as a homeopathist. The popular view of homeopathy seems to be: "For a dry cough, take this little pill; for a "productive" cough, that that one; if you can't sleep and feel anxiety, take this pill."

Those remedies are, at best, first aid, or acute remedies. I have seen homeopathic arnica used to good effect for healing physical injuries, such as bruises. In fact, once when my wife had dental surgery, she took homeopathic arnica. When she returned a week later, the dentist expressed amazement at the speed of her healing, and said that he had never seen anything like it. But when she started to tell him about the arnica, he totally tuned out! The only thing that was more amazing than the speed of my wife's recovery, was the speed with which the dentist closed his ears.

Most of the self-styled homeopathists I have visited are little more than clowns acting like grown-up kids playing doctor. At best, they may suggest the right pill for a minor ailment, but they do not seem to have a clue about what homeopathy is actually about.

A classical homeopathist, such as the MD I went to, is trained in treating the person, not as a symptom which has walked in their door, but as a whole being. To that end, the homeopathist takes a lot of time to interview you. My interview was over two hours, and she was not looking at her watch to make sure we would finish on schedule.

At the end, she administered three, tiny, spherical, white pills. She explained that she was not going to tell me what they were until I returned in three weeks for a follow-up appointment.

Of course, that created a huge and growing expectation, not to mention an obsession with those pills, which increased over that three week period. These three pills were a constitutional remedy, not one of the "quick-fix" remedies for acute conditions, which everyone seems to be focusing on in this discussion (and you can't blame people for that because "take this pill for this problem and that pill for that problem" is pretty much all we ever hear about).

A consitutional remedy addresses fundamental character issues. In order to prescribe the right consitutional remedy, the homeopathist has to do more than wave a pendulum. It is necessary for that person to really connect with you, and to discern at a level which includes but goes beyond psychology.

If my homeopathist had been wrong in her prescription, when I returned and found out what remedy she had given me, it would have lacked authenticity, and I would have known that. As it was, when I learned what remedy she had given me, and learned about that remedy, it was powerful knowledge which changed my life. As a result of these two visits, I was able to grasp what it was that was holding me back from actualizing my potential, and to get beyond those limitations.

For me, the arguments about whether homeopathy is a placebo or not are irrelevant. Even if every pill my homeopathist has is exactly identical and interchangeable with all the other pills; the fact that the remedy she named was a "bingo," is what made the difference.

Her disclosure of the remedy I had taken told me so much about myself. If she had told me a different remedy, it would not have rang true. The power was not in the pill: It was in the relationship. The pill was pivotal. Perhaps the pills I took were symbolic. But what made it work was that the person prescribing the pills knew what she was doing, and had an incredibly, accurate diagnosis. The pills dramatized and underscored the diagnosis. You might say, the pills helped me to swallow the remedy.

I realize that some people are just not going to get it, and will continue to focus on whether the pills had any power, etc. I am not writing to argue, just to share my experience.

---
Every Day Is A Good Day! (well...mostly)

Authored by: Genie on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 09:28 PM GMT+5

Okay SK-B, I just got it about my remedy that was prescribed to me in 1998 or 1999.

That's why it didn't work: I didn't comprehend the symbolism of the remedy at the time.

But now I have that same pill in the form of a person. Homeopathy was indeed an incidental and intuitive, linear, dating strategy.

Thank you SK-B for shedding light upon my cure!!

Genie

---
Wonders Never Cease.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 12:26 PM GMT+5

Lise,
The problem with faith and blind belief is, like Bible-thumping
fundamentalism, it's imprisoning, dogma. I don't think you understand
the rational argument and how it works. Many religious people who
challenge scientists, attempt to make their scientific theories
equivalent to faith. I suspect this gives the faithful comfort, as
reducing theory to the level of faith puts both on an equal plane.
However, useful theories do not rely on faith and do not even require
belief. Scientific theories must agree with nature to some degree,
faith does not. If a theory's prediction fails to produce results, then
the theory itself cannot provide usefulness and the scientists must
throw it out. A hypothesis represents nothing more than a good guess
subject to further verification and usually precedes a theory. A
workable theory, however, represents a good guess based on evidence
and makes useful predictions.

"It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does
not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or
what his name is-- if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is
all there is to it."
-Richard Feynman

Authored by: Lise on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 01:20 PM GMT+5

>>The problem with faith and blind belief is, like Bible-thumping fundamentalism, it's imprisoning, dogma. I don't think you understand the rational argument and how it works.

Are you accusing me of having 'blind faith'? Didn't I just say I use astrology because it works? Is that having blind faith? I didn't know.

As for 'the rational argument' bit that I supposedly don't understand, I'll say this: I'm not going to be imprisoned by a socially conditioned concept of reason (or anyone else's idea of what one may 'reasonably' think about). I'm a free thinker too -- or too free a thinker -- sorry, my reason box is addled...

But it doesn't matter, as I've said before. Are you harmed by my use of astrology? If so, how are you harmed? (and would it hold up in court!) My point is - this is a tempest in a teapot and doesn't matter. You are free to do and think exactly as you like, and so am I! that's it.

I posted my little pro-astrology testimonial because I wanted to present the other side. But you don't have to buy it — it's just one little person's opinion.

Authored by: SK-B on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 02:19 PM GMT+5

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 02:25 PM GMT+5

What is reality?

How do you define "appropriate"? Based on what?

I'm not telling anyone what to do; I'm just establishing some basic
facts that rational people can agree upon. If you want to believe in
witches or teapots orbitting the earth, or any other non-testable
hypothesis, be my guest, pal.

Something to consider about astrology though. The usual objections to
astrology boil down to: how the hell could it possibly work? After all,
the stars are unthinkably distant, and the planets, an essential part of
astrology, revolve around the sun, not the earth. Besides, what's so
magical about the time of your birth--wouldn't it make more sense if
your personality were determined by the time of your conception? On
top of everything else, astrologists don't even agree on how to do
charts--check out the difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs
sometime.

But this is not what astrology buffs want to hear. To them it doesn't
matter that there's no plausible basis for astrology; they claim it just
"works." By this they mean a skilled astrologer can give you genuine
insights into your personality. In this they're undoubtedly correct--but
the credit goes not to astrology per se but to the practitioner.

Many experienced astrologers are pretty fair amateur shrinks. In the
course of a one or two hour consultation they can usually get a good
fix on your problems. Back this up with a lot of BS about Mars
conjunct Uranus and the effect is convincing--and what the heck, it
may even do you some good.

But to say astrology can be helpful doesn't mean it has any objective
validity. Studies have shown that (1) astrologers trying to deduce
someone's personality from his chart do no better than chance; (2)
astrologers studying the same chart come to opposite conclusions as
often as not; (3) the birth dates of people with occupations linked to
certain signs (e.g., politicians, scientists, soldiers) are in fact
randomly distributed throughout the zodiac; and (4) couples with
"incompatible" signs get married and divorced at the same rate as
compatible couples.

The fact is, people who want to believe in astrology will convince
themselves it works no matter what. In one study of 22 astrology
buffs, half were presented with their real horoscopes and half were
presented with fake charts saying the exact opposite. Both groups said
their horoscopes were 96 to 97 percent accurate.

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 03:38 PM GMT+5

OK I was gonna stay out of this because I'm trying to gain some spiritual peace, but you've crossed the line, Buddy.
Who died and left you boss? You're certainly no Einstein, and did you ever think about such times in history when "science" was viewed as quackery?
Ever heard of the Flat Earth people?What the hell do any of us really know? I've lost a lot of people to "science's experimentation", people who died because science thought THIS was "The New Wonder Drug" that ended up killing instead of curing. Ever hear of AZT?
In five hundred years, people will laugh at our "science" as we laugh at the medical treatment of the Middle Ages.
Don't get all uppity because people have open minds and you have empirical evidence. All truth is subjective, and all science begins with a subjective observance. Have some respect for other folks' viewpoints.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 05:54 PM GMT+5

"OK I was gonna stay out of this because I'm trying to gain some
spiritual peace, but you've crossed the line, Buddy."

Oh no, what are you going to arrest me for THIS time, officer of the
PC police?

"Who died and left you boss? You're certainly no Einstein,..."

Ouch, baby! I never said I was a nuclear physist. What's wrong with
defending your position, even if it goes against the hippie grain?
Oh yeah---I'm not supposed to argue! I forgot. Sorry... I'll try to
remember in future that I have to shut my mouth. I don't want to
defend science and offend anyone.

"...and did you ever think about such times in history when "science"
was viewed as quackery?"

You mean today, in Brattleboro? Or in the time of Copernicus? Was it
when people burned witches in Salem, honey?

"Ever heard of the Flat Earth people?"

Yeah, but I don't care to drink their koolaid.

"What the hell do any of us really know?"

Yeah, what the hell?

"I've lost a lot of people to "science's experimentation", people who
died because science thought THIS was "The New Wonder Drug" that
ended up killing instead of curing."

So now it's personal. I'm afraid a rational argument wasn't what you
came here for, huh?

"In five hundred years, people will laugh at our "science" as we laugh
at the medical treatment of the Middle Ages."

Yeah, but don't get any bright ideas that what YOU say will be revered
for centuries, babe.

"Don't get all uppity"

Okay, I won't if you won't.

"...because people have open minds and you have empirical
evidence."

Yeah, my mind is so closed! Where do *I* come off, asking for testing
and proof?? The NERVE!

"All truth is subjective,"

Is gravity subjective? Will you jump off the top of the Brooks tower to
show me what you mean?

"...and all science begins with a subjective observance. Have some
respect for other folks' viewpoints."

Yeah, I'll try to keep from, you know, getting all angry at people,
follow your example. Have a sunshine day!

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:47 PM GMT+5

Wow, I love it when somebody sits back and just disseminates what other people say like that...
Isaac Newton was just sitting there. alone, when the apple hit him on the head,
Maybe you should sit under apple trees, too...
Really, you don't want to go there with me.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 08:51 PM GMT+5

P.s. I always appreciate how you want someone to die for your assinine comments.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:08 PM GMT+5

Keep it civil, honey. I never said anybody should die over an ibrattleboro
blog. So don't go putting words into my mouth, okay?

Authored by: Wingnut on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:13 PM GMT+5

"Will you jump off a building" isn't wanting someone to die. BLove
doesn't believe in gravity so no one gets hurt.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:19 PM GMT+5

Exactly! Art Linkletter's daughter proved to us all that she could fly back
in the sixties, on acid. It was glorious, it was in technicolor, and the acid
was provided to the kids of America courtesy of the CIA. MKUltra. Your
tax dollars at work, folks. All of us, paying Uncle Sam so he can better
pay off the CIA hit men to kill witnesses to the JFK assassination. Sorry,
I get carried away. I know too damn much...

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM GMT+5

Don't call me babe or honey. You don't know me. Here's a quarter, buy some respect.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 10:32 PM GMT+5

Awww, c'mon Stella baby. You're not angry with Buddy are you?
Respect is so overrated these days. I like the way it works in
Hamburg. You walk by a girl, she asks you in German what the time
is, you try to reply in mangled Germ-lishche an answer, and she
giggles and asks where you are from. Then SHE buys the bier and
food, and asks you back to her flat. And it's all free. And the next day
you go to the beach and she takes her top off to sunbathe. And when
you joke with her and call her "baby" she just laughs and says she
likes it, says it reminds her of an old Hollywood movie, which she
wants to go to the kino with you to see the next night. So you see,
Stella or Annika or whatever, there's more to life than being angry
and bitter. Life is a bitchin' blast, sweetie. Take it in. It won't last
forever. Trust me.

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 11:09 PM GMT+5

I think I've lived more life than you've seen in your Playboy mags. Please, go back to Olde Heidelberg, and look up Fraulein Submissive.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 07:09 AM GMT+5

I didn't make that up, Laura. I got sick of all the rancor and tried to
extend my hand, and you bit it off. Nice. Oh, and "classy".

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 08:17 AM GMT+5

That's what you call "extending a hand"? A sexist, offensive, demeaning misogynist story? Wow.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 09:18 AM GMT+5

The German girl asked ME to bed, not the other way around. We had fun,
she was being flirtatious, I was too and there was no "socio-political
correct" agenda to get in the way of a good time. It was refreshing to
leave the Anglo Saxon/puritanical world that is so prevalent in US culture
for a more "continental" attitude. There is nothing wrong with women
being feminine and still strong, and with men being masculine and
showing tenderness as well, while both sexes realize that there are some
differences between the two, and viva la difference, as Buddy the 'Bon
Vivant' would say.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM GMT+5

Steven K,

Have you ever read Richard Dawkins' work? Would you disagree with him
when he says that religious faith actually is harmful to a free-thinking
society? And secondly, would you disagree with him when he says that
science is not a religion?

Check out what he has to say. He's pretty convincing and gives a better
argument (which I agree with) than I can:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Authored by: SK-B on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 05:10 PM GMT+5

Thank you for the link to the Dawkins article.

He sets forth a humanist, anti-faith position, which is worthy of discussion. I think hearing what one another has to say about the Dawkins essay could be an enlightening dialogue.

If you would start another thread focusing on the Dawkins essay, I promise that I will give a thoughtful response.

---
Every Day Is A Good Day! (well...mostly)

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 06:01 PM GMT+5

Okay,

But I guess I should wait until all the hippie new age heat gets toned
down a bit. I think I lit a few pairs of bell bottom trousers aflame and
angered some of the locals with my defense of science postings.

Buddy

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 03:10 PM GMT+5

So now we are being judgmental for stating that there is no plausible reason to believe in astrology and what's the harm if someone needs a little crutch to help them deal with reality?

Too bad Lise's original post was the one that came off as judgmental and intolerant.

"I can tell you unequivocally, that in my experience, they do."

"Most parents don't know anything about astrology and that's also unfortunate. If they did, they would stop trying to get their Libra Sun, Cancer Rising boy to go out for football. Or whatever ill-starred aspiration we might have for our kid."

"Bottom line is, I do charts and charts don't lie."

"So all you scoffers, I gotta say, it really doesn't matter what you think about astrology"

Your main defense iseems to be that it's ok since Lise isn't in a postion where this irrational behavior could get us all into trouble. Like say, Nancy Reagan.

What if a airline pilot decided to land in poor weather against the advice of the control tower because "God told him it would be ok." Would you be so understanding of his viewpoint if you were on the plane?

The hypocrisy on this board and Brattleboro in general is amazing.

Authored by: SK-B on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 04:13 PM GMT+5

I do not believe that, "I can tell you unequivocally, that in my experience, they do," is a judgmental statement. It is simply and expression of what Lise has found to be true in her own experience.

If she had said, "and you ought to believe in what I believe in," especially if she added that if you don't, it makes you a bad person, then it would have been judgmental.

It is really too bad that someone gets raked across the coals for sharing what is sacred to them. When someone discloses what is sensitive and meaningful in their life, I think that person is sharing a gift, which I hope other people would appreciate and respect, even if it is different from what is sacred to them.



---
Every Day Is A Good Day! (well...mostly)

Authored by: Rolf on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM GMT+5

Why is it necessary to call people "hypocrits"

Perhaps a more accurate question is, why do some people find it pleasurable?

Why is it nearly impossible to disagree on something like the value of astrology

without it becoming needlessly hostile and mean spirited?

It makes wanting to continue the discourse, tiring.

From my perspective, most of what Buddy Love said was an accurate description and deliniation of the difference between science and non-science.

It can be paraphrased into being a much more mean spirited statement then I read it to be,

but why do that ?

And why should Putney Reject call people hypocrits and state his amazement ?

I wish it was possible to have protracted conversations with people with whom I completely disagree, without it being seen as insulting.
Most people, myself included tend to have friends who agree with most of our opinions.

In my family, my Mother was a fundamentalist, my father was a Unitarian and had trained to be a minister. My grandfather was a communist. My brother was a muslim for 15 years. You might think we had interesting conversations around the table, or maybe you guessed correctly that we were silent on all topics concerning religion and most concerning politics, (well, we all disliked the GOP). Silence is such a miserable solution.


After all that, the one part of Lise's essay that disturbed me, personally,

was "

Most parents don't know anything about astrology and that's also unfortunate. If they did, they would stop trying to get their Libra Sun, Cancer Rising boy to go out for football. Or whatever ill-starred aspiration we might have for our kid."

I fully believe that astrology can be beneficial to people who use it, because people I trust say they find benefit of it to them in their lives.

On the flipside,

beleiving that someone should not pursue a hobby becuase they are "ill starred" to do so,

to me, appears to be a form of accidentally, well meaning, prejudgement.

If I were to say, "Asian children should be encouraged to take advanced math courses, but other students should be encouraged to take other courses"

it would be rightly quickly to be seen as a

pre judgement of the students abilities or temperment

based on a theory.

The best way to tell who should do what does not require consulting a chart.

The child that wants to play French horn, play football, or play chess

is the one that says he or she wants to.

Any theory, or idea, that claims to be able to divulge who should be persuing any option that brings the child joy,

should be completely diregarded, methinks and respectfully submits.

In my eyes, consulting anything more than the child's opinion risks squashing passion of the child.

(Note I say risks, not "definitely will". I just think there is a potential for harm.)

And passion is what life is all about, (well ok, plus good sex and not hurting bunnies needlessly).

Peace

Rolf

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:24 PM GMT+5

Howard Gardener is a educational theorist who came to tell us about
his "Multiple Intelligences" theory of education at the museum I
worked at. He used a chart to measure, at the time, seven
intelligences. Now there are more.

Each person has a unique set of strengths and weaknesses for their
chart, and knowing them can help with teaching and learning by
"playing to their strengths." It goes against the assembly-line
educational system that is so common and says that everyone needs
their own education, basically.

One way he explained it was that in some situations you might
assume a football player sitting still in a classroom to be dull or
dimwitted, but that isn't the kid, its how they are being taught. On
the football field they can make brilliant, instant decisions. The trick,
he says, is then to find ways, say, to make the learning more active
for this student. Maybe give them a trampoline and ask them to do
multiplication tables. That sort of thing.

This is also in line with Reggio Emilia in Italy, which is an educational
system that has its goal is to bring joy to students.

Authored by: Rolf on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 07:17 AM GMT+5

I am familiar with, and by and large subscribe to Gardner's educational ideas.

But the difference between an astrological chart and Gardner's

is that while Gardner makes an assesment of the child's abilities

based on observations of the child

astrological charts are a prejudgement of a person's abilities

based on positions of planets or things other than the persons observed abilities.

The only thing they appear to share is the word chart
and perhap also good will.

Authored by: annikee on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:28 PM GMT+5

Rolf, all that you've said here just makes me want to go back to where I started; I think you'll be a great daddy.

---
*******
BB & 93

Authored by: Lise on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:21 PM GMT+5

Hi all,

Didn't mean to fan the flames with my posts (ok, maybe I did) but
what the hey, I have Mars and the moon in Aries, and I get passionate
about things. I don't mean to come off like I'm slamming anyone cuz
I'm not. I just feel very strongly about astrology, in this case, and
wanted to share my viewpoint. I do think the world would be better if
people used whatever means they have available (including astrology)
to better understand their various fellow men. I think we'd do much
better if we cut each other some slack. Sorry if I projected the
opposite....

Anyway, people tell me I'm prickly and maybe I am, but I want to
say up front, I'm not mad or upset about this, and have been finding
the discussion highly entertaining. If anyone felt personally affronted
by my comments, I apologize. I may have made some mistakes in
tone but I meant it in fun.

As for estoterica, i love it and always have. When I was a kid, I did
want to be a witch, Buddy, tis true. I'm a student of esoteric systems
of thought, all of them pretty much. If there were a job category for
philosopher, i would apply.

So when you talk about something like astrology, to me it adds an
overlay that makes the world more comprehensible -- but not the
world so much as people. Astrology explains people. And as someone
who is intuitive but not particularly sensitive, it helps to have a
guidebook or blueprint to help me navigate the social mindfield.

To me, science, poetry and magic all coexist on the same plane. I
don't see one as being better than any other. The world would be a
much poorer place without any one of them. That's why I mourn the
extinctions of both animals and ideas. Our world is impoverished and
genericized when we allow them to take away its full beauty and
complexity by clamping down on imagination (and species diversity).

It's late, and I'm tired, but I just wanted to explain again why I do
actually care about this stuff, crazy as it seems. ;)

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:30 PM GMT+5

It's okay Lise. Nothing personal I hope. I also get passionate about
science and maybe it's because my parents made me go to church every
sunday when all I really wanted to do was learn about the dinosaurs
(they were older than Jesus, so they were more esteemed, or so I
thought). All that tooth fairy and Santa stuff and then other lies adults
told me made me highly suspicious and skeptical.

Take care, I love reading your arguments.

Buddy Love

Authored by: signifyingsimian on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 09:47 PM GMT+5

Maybe Lise could draw up Mr. Buddy Love's astrological chart. Perhaps if we knew which houses his stars are in, we might understand better why he does not accept astrology.

Authored by: moll on Monday, August 21 2006 @ 10:36 PM GMT+5

Well, isn't that mighty white of you, Mr. Buddy Love, to say it's all okay after all this. You are just so gracious, so obviously caring about everybodys feelings. I wish we wuz all just like you, cuz you perfect. You don't even have to apologize to Lise or anybody!

Authored by: signifyingsimian on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 01:16 AM GMT+5

Ha,ha...BINGO!

Authored by: tiny on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 06:06 AM GMT+5

This is the most tedious thread I have ever read.

So tedious, the proof is JCI1 has not even weighed in with "this is my new idea" porn link.

Oh, by the way Rolf, congrats on the impending birth of your new baby.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 07:18 AM GMT+5

You know, you guys are probably right. Meanness doesn't suck, as
long as you make sure that the person you are mean to is alone and
isolated, with ideas that the majority doesn't agree with, and when
the first person trips him, the rest of you all can then kick him in the
groin. Make sure to laugh a lot, and make him an example, so he
won't want to come back to dare to argue his iconoclastic ideas ever
again. It's important to do this, because ideas that clash with the
group's are dangerous and might poison the "peace and harmony" that
everyone else shares, in a collectivist, communal way. Meanness only
sucks when it's one person, acting alone. The group assassination of
an isolated person's character is not only fun to do, it's really cool. It's
what we should teach our children to do.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 07:39 AM GMT+5

I forgot to mention that JOHNDOE#1 and the "sheeple" guy both have
been treated in the same way I have been. Nobody is innocent, and
I'm not saying I wasn't a bit "cheeky" in some of my responses. But I
detest the "pile on" where a bunch of ibrat posters gang up and do
character assassination on someone whose ideas are different or that
somehow threaten the status quo, hippie/alternative/activist majority.
As a secular humanist who likes to read history, I find your pile on
methods (even if you guys are right and I am wrong on a particular
issue) to be disgusting, worthy of a Lord of the Flies Republic where
the gang mentality rules.

I guess it was "white" of me to extend a hand to Lise after I had
fought so bitterly for my secular humanist ideas. I should have what,
not shown any "weakness"?? Maybe it's just that I need some brain
washing, to be programmed like the MKUltra project, with "astrology
indoctrination" so I will be a part of the group again. Maybe the elites
can tie me down and torture me until I give up my foolish
independent ideas. Then I can apologize on the state radio network,
after of course going through a televised, state trial...

Authored by: PutneyReject on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 07:57 AM GMT+5

/gets on soapbox

This intolerance of someone promoting, <gasp> the scientific method <oh no!>, by the supposed tolerant Brattleboro community is exactly the hypocrisy that I expressed sadness and disdain for in an earlier post.

It's obvious there is clique on this board of posters who will protect each other no matter how inane the position taken is. Again, it reminds me of the "neocons" and "freepers" that I'm sure many (if not most) posters on this board despise.

Having your hypocrisy and prejudice exposed can be painful but I hope some of you on this board are open-minded enough to undergo some critical self-examination (myself included.)

If anyone here has coarsened the debate, it sure as hell wasn't Buddy.

/gets off soapbox

Authored by: cgrotke on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 09:37 AM GMT+5

the definition is that someone is claiming to have some moral
standards to which they don't live by themselves.

As far as I can tell, people are stating their beliefes and that they live
by them.

That's not hypocrisy.

I think this thread points out that there is a great deal of diversity in
thinking and that people hold many things as beliefs and truths.

If there is any "piling on" it is natural and not planned, coordinated, or
organized.

Some are making gross genralizations that the entire site is anti
science. That is laughable. We have a sci-tech section open for
scientific articles. I think I've contributed the most to that section.

There is a section devoted to nature, which to me, is science in pure
form.

No one is being prevented from writing about science. And if anyone
thinks I am anti-science, or into flakey mystical magic to cure
illnesses or find riches, they do not know me. I am happy and capable
of discussing those things, though, and I like brainstorming and trying
to look at things in new ways, so I am open to listening to things and
trying things firsthand to see for myself.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 10:05 AM GMT+5

Chris,

I responded to the astrology argument in this thread because that was
what "Horoscope Schmoroscope" was addressing. Sorry if it wasn't in
the sci-tech category, but it wasn't.

The point about people being hypocritical was made originally in
reference to people who used science when it fit their political agenda
(such as stem cell research, global warming science, etc.) but not
when it threatened their astrology or water pill beliefs. Saying that
these are just "other ways of thinking" is (to me) like saying that
"gravity and the speed of light" are just constructs, and if you don't
believe in them, that's just "another opinion." Yeah, I feel strongly
about that.

I'm glad you share my feeling that science is a great way to examine
things and figure out how nature works. Have you read anything by
Richard Dawkins? Google him. I share many of his ideas about science
and reason. You might be surprised at what he has to say.

Sincerely and without rancor,

Buddy

Authored by: cgrotke on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 10:24 AM GMT+5

Did you see that they announced yesterday (while we were all having our
discussion) that scientists now say they have their best evidence yet for
dark matter? They have found it in a colliding galaxy.

The gravity of the situation...

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 10:42 AM GMT+5

Yes, I did. Very cool. This is one of the news pages I go to each AM to
check up on the early worms: http://science.physorg.com/

Now back to my Dean Martin tunes and that drink I placed somewhere...

Authored by: SK-B on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 11:55 AM GMT+5

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 12:31 PM GMT+5

Could we all (myself included I promise to try) please refrain from
taking a personal angle in our arguements and discussions, and to
please stop being "personally offended" by x, y and z? It's like a room
full of Southern "gentlemen" swaggering around with loaded pistols,
just waiting for the next chance to defend their "honor." It gets in the
way of conflicting ideas, because everyone has to tippy toe around a
bunch of overstuffed egos. I recall that I made some general
comments about the town that were a tad racy or over the line, then I
got jumped on by a bon vivant feminist hermit, and some others who
violently disliked everything I stood for. I say to everyone who was
offended that I am sorry for being cheeky and a bit disrespectful, and
let's keep the discussion on an academically neutral ground, pistols on
safety and kept at home. Thank you.

Carry on.

Authored by: Sid on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 03:54 PM GMT+5

"Hypocritical" is a very strong adjective, and a hot-botton word. It should be used judiciously, only after careful deliberation. Before characterizing someone else's comments as hypocritical, always ask yourself: "Is that really what I mean to say?"

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 05:09 PM GMT+5

Yes, although I wasn't the one who used the term in the original post. : )
I would include "assinine" and "white of you" as inflammatory terms too,
now that we're on the topic.

Authored by: Sid on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 05:41 PM GMT+5

White of you is pretty bad. Assinine, not quite as much. Neither approach the offensiveness of calling someone a hypocrit. Assinine means stupid. White of you is a sarcastic put-down. They are both examples of name-calling. But when you call someone a hypocrit, you are not simply calling them an offensive name: You are seriously accusing that person of knowingly lying to deceive other people by pretending that they have certain values which, in fact, they do not have.

It is easy to empathize with someone getting exasperated and saying that someone is stupid, and then later regretting having said it. But you have been defending the use of the word hypocrit, and you have continued to explain and defend it. What that means is that you, and whomever else has accused Lise of hypocricy, are accusing her of knowingly and intensionally trying to deceive the readers into thinking that she holds values which she really does not hold.

If that is not what you intent to accuse her of, then why don't you stop fudging the issue, and make an outright disclaimer (and probably an apology would be honorable as well). If you do believe that Lise is a hypocrit, then tell us how you know that her intentions are to deceive. If that is not what you believe, then make a clear, and definite retraction.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 09:32 PM GMT+5

Lise,

Not only am I sorry if I in any way slandered your name, but I'm sorry if
in any way you inferred that I called you a hypocrite. And I hope you will
forgive me, and all the poor saps who've been misspelling the word this
entire evening.

Good night everyone.

Now Ricky Nelson will sing the song to close the show.

Authored by: tiny on Tuesday, August 22 2006 @ 10:41 PM GMT+5

i was hoping the 100th comment to this thread would be the porn link but who can wait any longer. I am begging you people, show the Bud Man some love and give him the collective electronic hug. Let's stick a fork in this one 'cause it's dead.

Authored by: Sid on Wednesday, August 23 2006 @ 08:16 AM GMT+5

Thank you. There is no spell-check on iBrattleboro. Everyone would be much more happy if Ricky Nelson does NOT sing the final refrain.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, August 23 2006 @ 09:08 AM GMT+5

"Well it's alright now,
I learned my lesson well,
You see you, can't please everyone,
So you, got to please yourself."

WELL SAID, Ricky. Goodnight folks.

"If James Dean sang, he would sound like Rick Nelson."
--Elvis Presley