New Astrology Signs

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

NinjaPuppy... thanks and do understand that I'm not "trying" to be an ass (some say it's my natural state of being) but with all the "things" I have to juggle any kind of "change" results in personal frustration (and yes, we're talking about mental function and the joys of MS). Looking at a screen that is familiar (a very old friend in fact) and finding that "the rules have changed" simply throws me into a tail spin. . . in this case I've voiced my opinion in that it makes absolutely no sense UNLESS someone wishes to avoid TED seminar & lecture posts that can quickly shoot down pro-conspiracy/lunacy & New Age cult-thinking scenarios (which this forum and unfortunately, our host, seem to roll in like a pig in mud). . . understand, I believe everyone should be able to bring up such things and why they do or don't support such. I just think that we should be able to rely on more than YouTube and Wiki-ish sources as being "authoritative" if you get my drift. . . and too, we need to keep things simple when it comes to our ability to share information rather than going out of "our" way to be "special" -- use what works as it has been working rather than trying to "fix it."


Enough though. . . I'm confident Winston has heard my reasoning and contention. I just hope he'll now digest it and reconsider how things are presently, and elect to work with the tools this forum software comes with that allows for a more universal sense of "friendliness"

[derrida]

hi craig, one question
i know you do divination stuff and numerology and things like that
do you also use the astrological signs?
if that is so.. did any past customer call you and ask you about the new sign?

just curious

[Craig Browning]

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

I could simplify it even more than what you're saying here... the breaking down of characteristics is seasonal and always has been, but there is a correlation to the celestial map as well... but IF you would actually read about Astrology itself and how charts are configured, even doing the physical work yourself. . . you may actually learn a little about something you are blindly bashing just because some pedigreed shmucko told you to...
... last I checked that was called contempt without investigation... judging a book by its cover... blindly accepting what others tell you to believe as fact...

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

No... other than the fact that you will continue to look like another puffed up ass that wants to negate any and all modes of mysticism from life (like the majority of others standing in your little world view).

I'm not going to play this silly game. . . I will ask you however, given the superiority of Science & Rationalism and of course, your contention here with the whole star field expansion, how nothing would be "true" to the astrological maps of old, etc.

Why have the SCIENCES of Navigation, Map Making, and Astronomy relied on those same out of date bits of information for so very long and yet, you view them as legit and accurate? Why do Astronomers (in particular) still use Astrological references? After all, it's all bogus and means nothing, right?

So what portion of this very same knowledge and understanding (Astronomy did evolve out of Astrology after all, not the other way around) is so wrong for the elder "idea" but is perfectly fine and sound for the off-spring to rely on?


Yes, the universe is ever expanding... Blavatsky got laughed at and scorned by the great minds of science for saying this a century back, but now it's "law" and thus, proven fact. . . the Universe Expands and most likely Contracts... but hey, that's an old wives tale that can be traced back to the days of Babylon and other cultures with "mystical teachings" that said the very same things. . . the old mystics were nut cases for believing in it but the Clergy of Science are sanctified and validated when they plagiarizer that very same truth?

My how things always stay the same, changing only by matter of pursued perspective.

[Arouet]

You know what Craig, I think I've caught onto your game. You, my friend, are full of crap. And by that I mean of the bullish kind. I don't believe you believe in Tarot or Astrology or mediumship or any of this stuff anymore than any skeptic on this board. You couch your language in so much ambiguity, seeming on the one hand to be saying you believe in psi, but never quite getting there.

What you don't like, is the skeptical approach and attitude - and it's often dismissive and even insulting tone. I agree with you to a certain extent on that and do try not to be rude in my comments. But you are not going to tell me that you think there is some legitimacy to astrology. You know very well that what astronomers do and what astrologers do is very different. You also know that astronomers don't put any particular relevance on the constellations other than as sky markers. So don't give me that crap.

[Craig Browning]

As I said, my knowledge of Astrology and my "faith" in it is very limited and comes more out of the fact that I have to know some of it in order to respond to clients when I do Readings as well as when I'm doing shows. Other than the few instances I mentioned earlier, I have very little in way of reason, to give Astrology much attention. I do however find it curious that all these "sciences" rely on markers and zones that were first established by Astrologers thousands of years ago and that are now being mocked and puffed-off as being pure folly. Yet, "rationally minded" people like yourself seem to get bent when someone points out how so many "reliable" sciences depend on those same markers and haven't made any of the adjustments for them, for the same reason Astrology is being mocked presently.

No one likes having their perceptions and beliefs "challenged". . . but your reply is not disappointing, it's quite typical in fact.

[Arouet]

Craig are you saying that actual astronomers have been using outdated data? Astronomers have known about this for a very long time. Can you point me to any astronomy that has been miscalculated?

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

You did notice the date here... 1930?

If I recall (been a long time since I was involved with all of this. . .from a star watcher's position... so we're talking High School) this "IAU" exercise was done so as to deliberately segregate Astronomy from its parent. . . There was some similar action taken in the mid and late 1800's for the very same reason; the "scientists" getting tired of being forced into explaining away Astrological influence.

My favorite of these "let's make the intellects squirm" arguments is how, in one breath they explain the physics of gravity & frequency and how it keeps things "together" as a system and how each gravitational field affects everyone else within that system BUT, there is absolutely no affect on people, places & things on earth as the result of these physical factors and where they may be when one is conceived and later born. . . so, it affects "everything" but not us

To this same end, I love watching them trying to explain how study cases in which as many as 12 individuals born within five-minutes of one another and along the same general latitude each hit prime milestones in life that mirror one another's life accomplishments as well as the suggested paths & traits that have been taught by Astrologists for millennia.

This whole thing has lit a fire under my butt... guess I'm going to have to do some digg'n ... CURSE YOU RED BARON!

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]