From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #365 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, September 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 365 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Born under a bad sign ["Capitalism Blows" ] I left before I got here ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: A tall green cat leaps very lightly, sells sheep, cars and pies [Ross] Rush to judgement [amadain ] Le Pomme & Le Ballon [Tom Clark ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Ken Ostrander ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Ross Overbury ] Re: Hell Yeah!!!!!!! [Tom Clark ] Website finally online after hours. [dlang ] Astrology - skip this if you're as bored with the topic as I am! [james.d] great moments in dance #14: ross overbury performs the ["Capitalism Blo] Re: Born under a bad sign [Jon Fetter ] Re: Astrology - skip this if you're as bored with the topic as I am! [Ros] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:52:00 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign chomsky was born in '28, which blows this theory all the way to fuck and back. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:25:47 -0400 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: I left before I got here So long, Fegmaniacs. My wife and I are moving to San Antonio, Texas this week, so I'll be offline for about a month. It's been real nice getting meeting with you East coast Fegs. Maybe I can hook up with you Texas Fegs eventually -- I plan on spending lots of time in Austin. Toodles! ++++++++ Gene Hopstetter, Jr. + Online Design Guy http://extra.newsguy.com/~genehop/ ++++++++ Monica Lewinsky. The other white meat. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 98 14:22:28 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: A tall green cat leaps very lightly, sells sheep, cars and pies > >[stuff about Ophiuchus snipped] > > thirteen signs lie around the true zodiac, as defined by the sun's path > through the sky. But, as many an astrologer will point out, the exact 12 > signs are irrelevant. The important thing is the division of the year into > 12 equally sized houses. It was convenience as much as anything else which > saw them named after the twelve 'sun-signs'. If the actual constellation > that the sun was passing through was the most important thing, then the 12 > houses would all be of differing durations (compare the size of Scorpius > and Libra and you'll see why!). If I'm not mistaken, some of the personality traits attributed to a sign are derived from the physical appearance of the sign (water signs, etc). This implies that the specific constellation named is important. How about the attributes of the planets? Any connection there with the mythological characters after which they're named? Were the names given to reflect the effect of the planets on people after analysis of such effects, or simply to honor the gods? > > >Astrology buffs don't talk about it much either out of ignorance or > >embarassment, as near as I can tell. Skeptics ask because it's a good > >question that deserves a good answer. Skeptics ask about *everything*. > >Why make an exception for pet concepts? > > Well, many will - as I pointed out above - simply state that the division > of the year into 12 houses is more important that the signs themselves. You > could say you were morn under the sign of Binky the Three-legged Kangaroo > if that sign had recognisable traits. The important factor - if there is > one - is more likely the climatic conditions on Earth at the different > times of the year: do people who have been geststed through winter turn out > differently to people who have been gestated during summer? Less likely now > than during pre-modern medicine times, probably, but it is still possible. > Of course this begs the question: "do we need a different explanation for > each sign for different parts of the planet?" If that validated anything at all, it'd be the type of horoscope where you work out your sign and that's that. Astrologers do make a big deal of the effects of the moon and planets within the signs, don't they? You could make a case for the moon, but the concept looks very weak when you consider planetary influence. > > I recently played devil's advocate on another list WRT astrology, simply > because one person was attacking it out of hand without looking at it > closely, setting up all sorts of 'unanswerable questions' each of which it > can answer with reasonable ease. I don't believe in it, but I have done a > bit of study on it - enough to know that the majority of questions aimed at > bringing it down as a theory miss the mark or can be easily explained away. > Common sense dictates that it is irrelevant, but common sense would > probably also balk at the possibility that matter is more than 99% empty > space. > > >I'm sure you'll find just as much confidence in the reading of gnu > >entrails in those who practice that particular form of divination. > >To say that there's got to be something to it if enough people believe > >in it is demonstrably false. > > where's the proof in most economic theories? Or religions? Or some schools > of psychology, for that matter? So we accept all ideas proffered, regardless of proof of validity? If you ever got out of bed in the morning, we'd be bickering endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need a B.S. filter. Economic theories can prove themselves after they're proposed when their performance is evaluated. Astrology has that chance too. How did it do in that study cited in this list? Psychology's an interesting case. It's my opinion that psych based on repeated observation, evaluation and follow-up can be of some use. Freud's variety, on the other hand, seems to have been developed with a heavy reliance on the "Hey, I just got this cool idea" method. Do you think astrology was the result of the careful gathering and analysis of data, or the extension of someone's mythology? If it was based on data, that data didn't provided information significantly useful today, or that study would have likely shown it. Religions? Exactly! But where religions reign are those areas inscrutable to science. Where soon as religion and science overlap and disagree, science prevails. I've heard one popular North American Christian sect believes that the sun's light is transmitted to it from the planet Kolob. No kidding. Now how much credit are we willing to give this idea, and how hard do we need to work to discredit it when we have a reliable model of the sun's light generation in nuclear fusion? Does astrology's set of suppositions lie entirely outside the means of science to evaluate? > > >If it works, you can prove it. So > >where's the proof? > > If you're studying it scientifically, you use scientific method. It is > impossible to prove anything without doubt using scientific method. Please excuse my arrogant tone. I get exasperated by this stuff sometimes, especially when I've been compared to Rush Limbaugh. Science accepts ideas are accepted as true, but in a sense that they provide good working models, and are proveable *within definable a margin of error*. Nothing is immune to revision. That includes astrology and ideas embraced by major religions. > > >How can they theorize on how it works, if it can't be demonstrated to > >work in the first place? > > the problem is simply the number of variables involved. Any science with > enough variables soon imitates an art. Look at chaos theory. We know all > the rules as to how hurricanes form in different parts of the world, but we > don't come close to working out how to predict them ahead of time until > they actually start to develop. You're not filling in the blanks, and I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. I've got no wish to write a book on this! If I claim I can communicate with the luminous beings of Zubelgenubi, are you wise to accept that? Before you're allowed to dismiss the idea as unworthy of further investigation, must you refute my every claim? Nope. Scientists would be paralysed with theories of fairies manipulating molecules and enchanting the observations themselves. I don't miss the dark ages at all, and I have no wish for a New (dark) Age. The burden of proof (such as defined by science, blah blah blah) lies on the one making the claim. If the list wasn't so inactive I'd have let this one go by. Are you guys all nursing fegparty hangovers or what? Love is real. But if Celine tells me it can move mountains I'm calling her out. - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:06:15 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Rush to judgement >Please excuse my arrogant tone. I get exasperated by this stuff >sometimes, especially when I've been compared to Rush Limbaugh. Just one thing, as I am trying very hard to stay out, but this needed clearing up. YOU weren't being compared to Rush Limbaugh. I was making a comparative analogy vis a vis rarity of a particular phenomenon and probably should have chosen a more neutral example- it was just the most obvious example that came to my mind and wasn't meant to imply anything about Ross personally or to imply that his debate style is Limbaugh-esque. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:25:13 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Le Pomme & Le Ballon On 9/19/98 10:44 AM, Terrence M Marks wrote: >The essence of it: >One of Apple's projects was code-named Sagan. >Carl Sagan, not too happy to have his name used without his consent, >either sued them or told them to stop. >APple Computers responded by changing the code-name of the project to >"Butt-head Astronomer". >Sagan sued them for defamation or suchlike. >The suit was dropped because "One does not seriously attack the >credibility of a respected scientist by using undefined words like >'butthead'". Essentially Terry's correct, and it is fact. "Carl Sagan" was the codename of one of the original PowerMac machines (the 8100, I think). The codename of the original skunkworks project - which carried on throughout the whole program - was "PdM", or "Piltdown Man." The other associated codename (for the 7100) was "Cold Fusion." You scientific types may see the relationship between the three. Yes, that's right: Scientific Frauds. Word has it that Dr. Sagan wasn't so much trying to keep his Q-rating down, but in fact he caught on to the relationship and was a bit miffed. So we changed it to "BHA". You'd be surprised at the number of conversations around here that had people speculating on the meanings of PdM and BHA - they weren't very public. Oh yeah - pet peeve time: The company's name is "Apple Computer", there's no "s" at the end. Sorry, it's just one of those things - you know, like people saying "that Balloon Man guy." - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:40:50 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign >> I guess I basically believe in astrology. I don't know a ton about it, but whenever someone's Sun, Moon and Rising are all taken into account, I've found that this generally paints a pretty good protrait of what that person's like. There are always going to be intervening variables, of course, and astrology is far from being a perfect art or science. >> there's a great website that will calculate your complete astrological chart with all of the planets for free. all you need to know is your birthday, where you were born, and what time of day to get an accurate chart. the descriptions for each position are not all that great; but it's handy to find out what all of your positions are. >Certainly a large portion of your personality is environmental and created >in your most impressionable times of development. So what sort of >developmental characteristics are common among children born in, say, >October? Well, they usually take their first steps in summer... they >spend their first months heavily clothed through winter... in my day, they >started school as younger people due to the way deadlines fell. This >would be, of course, completely opposite for antipodeans. But do they not >have different astrology as well? I know fuck-all about astrology. every planet deals with a different aspect of someone's personality. when most people talk about astrology, they're refering to the sun sign little blurbs in magazines and newpapers. that's a major part of someone's chart; but still just that, a part. the sun, moon, and ascendant are the three major bits. kind of like id, ego, & superego; though they don't fall neatly into those categories. ><< What's a MMPI profile? >> > > I think it stands for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. >It's probably the most common personality test given. Actually, I think it's >the MMPI-2. Anyway, there are, like, 200-300 questions that the respondant >answers. These are then "graded" and charted out into, um, 7 (IIRC) >categories, like Paranoia and Depression. These are then graphed, with peaks >and valleys along the different measures giving insights into people's >personalities. I think all the questions are Yes/No questions . . . or >True/False, maybe. They're meant to be deceptively straightforward, like "I >read auto magazines" or "I can't eat bread unless it's buttered" (I made those >up, BTW). I learned how to administer it in grad school, but have forgotten >(happily) a lot about it since then. i don't remember taking such a test when i was young. i did take a personality type test when some scientology folks tried to get me to pay for a dianetics course. they feed you some line about how you need their course because the test says you're suicidal. >basically, he found that there was *less* of a relationship between >astrological signs and mmpi profiles than would be expected from chance >alone. > >this was with a database of 2600 people, so it's pretty bad for astrology. >unless you decide that the mmpi doesn't measure the same thing as >astrological signs. well, when they talk about astrological signs, they are most likely referring to sun signs without any regard for the various interpretations of the other planets. that could explain those results. ken "sun in leo, moon in scorpio" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 98 18:05:08 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign The Kenster says: > there's a great website that will > calculate your complete astrological chart with all of the planets for > free. all you need to know is your birthday, where you were born, and what > time of day to get an accurate chart. the descriptions for each position > are not all that great; but it's handy to find out what all of your > positions are. Also free: Your Astrillogical Forcast at: http://members.aol.com/bvastro/astrillogical.htm > every planet deals with a different aspect of someone's personality. when > most people talk about astrology, they're refering to the sun sign little > blurbs in magazines and newpapers. that's a major part of someone's chart; > but still just that, a part. the sun, moon, and ascendant are the three > major bits. OK. Why? > i don't remember taking such a test when i was young. i did take a > personality type test when some scientology folks tried to get me to pay > for a dianetics course. they feed you some line about how you need their > course because the test says you're suicidal. The Scientologists believe that they don't need to see doctors if they're clear; they can cure themselves. Sure, why not? - -- "That's *your* reality!" - Shirley MacLean "Who you jivin' with that Cosmic Debris?" -FZ Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:21:39 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Hell Yeah!!!!!!! On 9/20/98 8:55 PM, Hallucinogenic Woodpecker wrote: >finally.......the wait is over > > > >New Vanilla Ice Album Due >The hard-hitting new album from pop-rapper Vanilla "Ice Ice Baby" Ice, Hard >to Swallow, will be released Oct. 20. The thrash/rap album, produced by >Ross Robinson (Korn, Limp Bizkit) is a hybrid of Ice's rapping and >Kornesque hard rock. The album's songs include "Living," "Scars," "F--- >Me," "The Horny Song," "Freestyle," "Too Cold," "Ecstacy" and "Prozac." I'm gonna miss his Rasta period... - -tc p.s. Saw "The Wedding Singer" Saturday night, with Billy Idol '98 playing the role of Billy Idol '85. Very Scary. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:18:45 +0930 From: dlang Subject: Website finally online after hours. - -- I think our server finally is working 24 hours, whatever, its working at the moment , so if you want to check out the abandoned brain, with the posse spew .etc. its online NOW. Which is 8-15 pm australian time. dave Visit my Robyn Hitchcock, Australian Deadhead, Beefheart, Richard Thompson & Womadelaide webpage for contacts, links ,photos , setlists and reviews ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:20:47 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Astrology - skip this if you're as bored with the topic as I am! >> If the actual constellation >> that the sun was passing through was the most important thing, then the 12 >> houses would all be of differing durations (compare the size of Scorpius >> and Libra and you'll see why!). > >If I'm not mistaken, some of the personality traits attributed to a >sign are derived from the physical appearance of the sign (water >signs, etc). This implies that the specific constellation named is >important. that's possibly the case, but since you can see just about anything you want in a collection of dots in the sky, it is possible that the use of particular names for constellations didn't come about until after the use of horoscopes started. >How about the attributes of the planets? Any connection there with the >mythological characters after which they're named? Were the names >given to reflect the effect of the planets on people after analysis >of such effects, or simply to honor the gods? here the names definitely postdated astrology - they're Roman. So the name Venus was given to the planet connected with love in astrological predictions (IIRC intriguingly replacing the name Lucifer!), and so on >> Well, many will - as I pointed out above - simply state that the division >> of the year into 12 houses is more important that the signs themselves. You >> could say you were morn under the sign of Binky the Three-legged Kangaroo >> if that sign had recognisable traits. The important factor - if there is >> one - is more likely the climatic conditions on Earth at the different >> times of the year: do people who have been geststed through winter turn out >> differently to people who have been gestated during summer? Less likely now >> than during pre-modern medicine times, probably, but it is still possible. >> Of course this begs the question: "do we need a different explanation for >> each sign for different parts of the planet?" > >If that validated anything at all, it'd be the type of horoscope where >you work out your sign and that's that. Astrologers do make a big deal >of the effects of the moon and planets within the signs, don't they? >You could make a case for the moon, but the concept looks very weak >when you consider planetary influence. that's true, although it's not just the 12 'sunsigns' and 'moonsigns' that might be important in this case - the time of day a person was born might also be important, hence the ascendent. I agree that loooked at in this way the planetary significance doesn't seem very likely. >> where's the proof in most economic theories? Or religions? Or some schools >> of psychology, for that matter? > >Economic theories can prove themselves after they're proposed when their >performance is evaluated. yes and no. In a microeconomical model, where theyre are no external factors, this is probably true. But there are always external factors. >Astrology has that chance too. How did it >do in that study cited in this list? not well, but exactly what was being measured? Like economics, there are so many variables and everyone has a different opinion as to exactly how they should be interpreted. >Do you think astrology was the result of the careful gathering and analysis >of data, or the extension of someone's mythology? probably a combination of the two, and when you consider that some of the 'rules' of astronomy were handed down pretty much by word of mouth for several centuries before they were written out, it's no wonder that they may no longer reflect the 'true' ideas of early astrologers. >If it was based on >data, that data didn't provided information significantly useful today, >or that study would have likely shown it. well, perhaps the methods we use are incorrect ones, and perhaps the nature of the human race has changed. Take for example that idea about time of year a person is born. Nowadays climate p[lays little role in a child's survival, particularly in western societies. But a thousand years back, children would have been far more likely to die, or may have received much poorer diet, if they were born in winter. >Religions? Exactly! But where religions reign are those areas >inscrutable to science. Where soon as religion and science overlap >and disagree, science prevails. I've heard one popular North American >Christian sect believes that the sun's light is transmitted to it from >the planet Kolob. No kidding. Now how much credit are we willing to >give this idea, and how hard do we need to work to discredit it when we >have a reliable model of the sun's light generation in nuclear fusion? >Does astrology's set of suppositions lie entirely outside the means of >science to evaluate? in most cases, sadly yes, for several reasons. The most obvious is simply because there is no single codified system that everyone agrees on, and no single possible interpretation of any given horoscope. The problem is fourfold. First, scientists have been unable to discover the exact nature of the influence that the horoscope has on a person. This is not to say that it doesn't exist, just that if there is something there, scientists haven't found it yet. Second, everyone can interpret the same data in a slightly different way. Third, it is presumably not the only factor in a person's make-up, therefore all the other factors have to be taken into account (and thanks to chaos theory and the infinity of factors, they never can be). Fourth, because most of the predictions made relate to a person's future, and humans have (let the philosophers argue!) free will, a person is abole to alter their circumstances to nullify or reduce the effects of the prediction. If a horoscope predicts that a person will die in a plane crash, they might not take a flight that day. And what of those who do still take the flight? The inadvertent cause of the crash may have been the one person who decided not to take the flight. >> >If it works, you can prove it. So >> >where's the proof? >> >> If you're studying it scientifically, you use scientific method. It is >> impossible to prove anything without doubt using scientific method. > >Please excuse my arrogant tone. I get exasperated by this stuff >sometimes, especially when I've been compared to Rush Limbaugh. > >Science accepts ideas are accepted as true, but in a sense that >they provide good working models, and are proveable *within definable a >margin of error*. Nothing is immune to revision. That includes >astrology and ideas embraced by major religions. true. In fact I'm trying to change one 'good working model' in the experiment I'm running in half an hour! The definable margin of error in most scientific tests is 5% - a one in twenty changece of a mistake having been made. In fact that in part is what I was saying earlier on - the principles of Astrology may not be wrong, but our modern interpretation of them may be. Perhaps with a re-jigging of the system they will prove to be surprisingly accurate. But until that revision occurs, it is impossible to tell whether astrology works or not! Who is Rush Limbaugh? >> >How can they theorize on how it works, if it can't be demonstrated to >> >work in the first place? >> >> the problem is simply the number of variables involved. Any science with >> enough variables soon imitates an art. Look at chaos theory. We know all >> the rules as to how hurricanes form in different parts of the world, but we >> don't come close to working out how to predict them ahead of time until >> they actually start to develop. >If I claim I can communicate with the luminous beings of Zubelgenubi, >are you wise to accept that? No, but if thousands of people from a host of different ancient cultures all claim that their ancestors communicated with them - independent of knowledge of what the other cultures had said - then it would be foolish to dismiss those claims without investigating them. How many ancient cultures used the stars as predictive agents? >If the list wasn't so inactive I'd have let this one go by. Are you >guys all nursing fegparty hangovers or what? agreed. As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. >Love is real. But if Celine tells me it can move mountains I'm >calling her out. depends on the size of the mountain. And how did you know I named my bulldozer "love"??? James PS - any chance of going back to talking about Robyn? James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:06:13 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: great moments in dance #14: ross overbury performs the know if there are overdubs on BEAUTIFUL QUEEN? i swear i heard some on Ballad Of A Thin Man the other day. either that or tim's backing vocals sound very, very much like robyn. another thing i noticed for the first time. on the GLASS FLESH version of Baloon Man, buried underneath all the cacophony, pretty near the end, are uttered the words, "Thunderbirds Are Go!" that kooky, or what? oh, and didja all catch the "heliotrope" reference on The Simpsons last night? so much for robyn content. yes, that's exactly what they told me! except they didn't say i was suicidal, they just said i was completely fucked up. i even told the guy i was willing to listen to all his crap --having had nowhere in particular to be-- but no fucking way was i going to fork over even one penny. i was promptly shown the door. <-- I think our server finally is working 24 hours, whatever, its working at the moment , so if you want to check out the abandoned brain, with the posse spew .etc. its online NOW. Which is 8-15 pm australian time.> i just tried it, 7:45 PDT, monday. didn't work. i can only assume you're joking james, as he's mentioned in Devil's Radio. but in case not, he's a talk radio host notable for being completely ignorant AS WELL AS horribly boring. but the worst part is, the reason i CANNOT listen to him hard as i have tried, is he can't fucking sit still in the damned studio. he's always opening cupboards, squeaking around in his chair, banging countertops, depressurizing cannisters...you name it, he's doing it. anything except for just sitting there quietly and talking into the microphone. did somebody say "irritating." jeezuz! KEN "HazMat" THE KENSTER ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:29:52 +0800 From: Jon Fetter Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign >"That's *your* reality!" - Shirley MacLean Didn't she say this to an Egyptologist who had told her there was no evidence of an immense crystal alien spacecraft buried under the great pyramid, or does she often say this when people tell her she's being stupid? Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Sep 98 23:32:52 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Astrology - skip this if you're as bored with the topic as I am! I just deleted a point-by-point refutation of James' last response. It was *boring*! It's that "what if, why not?" angle again. The real effect is to keep the unbeliever busy with so much legwork that the real issue is missed. And the real issue is that there is no compelling evidence of astrology's effectiveness as a model, or the verity of its underlying concepts. We start from there. Offer adequate evidence that astrology is worth spending so much time debating and I'll take it up again. Until then, it deserves exactly as much credit as alien abductions, magic healing crystals, goblins, etc. Popularity is not an issue. Truth is not democratic. Picking at points other than this fundamental one brings us back to debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. And yes, I did say that just a while ago, but some of you are skipping over that in an attempt to lend credibility to an indefensible old superstition. I call. What's your hand? > PS - any chance of going back to talking about Robyn? Sure. Anyone? Hey Eb, if you made it to the end of this post, how's that Storefront Hitchcock CD? - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #365 *******************************