Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Pfc. Jessica Lynch, likely to become the first popular hero of the Iraqi War, is only 19. She?s too young, in my estimation, to be of the Hero mold, or a Millie. But maybe she is just a very late one. On the other hand, she may be on the leading edge of my generational archetype?the thumb-sucking Artist. In which case, will there soon be a name for these Silent-esque children who sheepishly take bullets for the Holy Cause?

--Croaker

According to the Strauss and Howe timeline, Jessica Lynch would be among the first cohorts of the Millies--she would have been born in either 1982 or 1983.

Not to rub this in, but this represents a pretty significant confusion of S & H theory on Croaker's part. Who did he THINK were Millies?

Private Lynch is old for a Millie, not young. Artists may be being born now, depending on where turnings fall.

Mr. Rush your equation only means something if X truly affects P, it does not ergo your equation is gibberish. Astrology is gibberish that can only be accepted if one deliberately suspends reason. Astrology is nothing more than folklore.

As for the poles you are simply wrong go and look it up.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

As long as we're talking about horsemeat, people who are interested in consuming equines should be aware that it's not an entirely safe practice.

Generally, horses that go to slaughter have been used for riding. The way that they are raised, fed, and kept is entirely unregulated.

So's the stuff out of your neighbor's garden. Horse isn't inherently unsafe. I presume even if the horse was regularly bathed in chemicals, that proper cleaning and preparation of the meat would make it nontoxic...

I'm in no mood to experiment, of course...

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Rush your equation only means something if X truly affects P, it does not ergo your equation is gibberish.

A bold statement to make, O knower and seer of all things. Upon what evidence do you base this contention? (Occam's razor, while quite useful, is in no way evidence)

Unless X is a variable with true meaning then the equation is gibberish. Unless X (the planets and stars) has a true influence on human behavior the equation means nothing. You can express anything in an equation but unless the variables mean something the equation means nothing. He need not explain the equation I understand the equation it is his specification that I object to.

Astrology is CRAP

As a matter of fact I wont discuss it any further I can't believe that I am wasting my time telling people that astrology is crap anyone with a half way functioning brain should be able to figure that out. What a board full of pseudo intellectual flakes who don't even understand the damn book.

Mr. Rush your equation only means something if X truly affects P, it does not

Interesting. And you know this, exactly how?

As for the poles you are simply wrong go and look it up.

No, I'm not wrong. Look it up where?

As a matter of fact I wont discuss it any further

I strongly recommend that you not do so until you learn something about the subject. Not only are people likely to call you closed-minded, but your ignorance, so obvious to those of us who have actually studied it, might be embarrassing if broadcast in such certain terms.

I am open minded in that I believe that whether I like a policy has nothing to do with whether it is evidence of what turning we may be in. My mind is closed to mystical non sense. No I don't understand the universe but I do know have enough understanding to reject astrology.

Accepting garbage like astrology is not being open minded it is being weak minded.

Why would the month day and year of ones birth affect the personality of the individual?

Bubba:

Are you asking that looking for a serious answer? I do have one. Are you prepared to seriously consider it?

XoE:

I'm already packed, dear.

I thought it would be an intelligent discussion I now realize it is a place where a lot of people who are desperately attempting to prove they are smarter than they are post, but I belive that I will hang around to bring give you all a dose of reality from time to time.

Rush prove astrology is real, give me a solid theory on why it should work and not a lot of spurious correlation.

Yeah but it better be backed up by a lot not just a load of generalizations and meaningless random variance.

Rush prove astrology is real, give me a solid theory on why it should work

Giving you a solid theory is not the same as proving that astrology is real. Correlation of astrological configurations with observed events is what does that. But I can give you a theory; in fact, I already gave you the outlines.

There is an organizing principle in nature which is generated by all matter, and possibly by space-time as well. This organizing principle is not a form of energy; rather, it alters the way in which energy behaves insofar as that behavior is described by probability. It moves and operates not in space-time but in its own frame of reference, which I call association. In association, two things or events are proximate to the extent that they have characteristics in common.

Not all objects generate this principle in the same degree. The determining factor seems to be the improbability of occurrence of the object in question. There are many examples, but for purposes of astrology the important considerations are twofold: first, that among visibly star-like objects, only a small number are not actual stars (and one visibly non-star-like object actually IS a star); second, that in the volume of the solar system only a tiny percentage of the space is taken up by visible objects. The planets, accordingly, generate a great deal of this probability-altering principle.

I call the principle "psi," because it accounts not only for astrology but also for all observed psi effects.

A person born in a particular time and place is associated by reason of that birth with the planetary configuration of the time as observed from that place, and therefore all indeterminate events leading up to or deriving from that birth (the meeting of parents, the chance genetic configuration, and indeterminate events molding personality after birth) are pulled away from normal probability to resemble the associated characteristics of the planetary configuration.

I don't actually have a lot of hope of educating Bubba. He strikes me as the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up" type. But at least he needs to learn that those who disagree with him aren't necessarily ignorant or irrational.

Speaking of which, Bubba:

I thought it would be an intelligent discussion I now realize it is a place where a lot of people who are desperately attempting to prove they are smarter than they are post, but I belive that I will hang around to bring give you all a dose of reality from time to time.

Does the irony of that particular juxtaposition of statements affect you in the slightest, on reflectively looking back on it?

Originally Posted by bubba

I thought it would be an intelligent discussion I now realize it is a place where a lot of people who are desperately attempting to prove they are smarter than they are post, but I belive that I will hang around to bring give you all a dose of reality from time to time.

Rush prove astrology is real, give me a solid theory on why it should work and not a lot of spurious correlation.

Please don't go Bubba. I appreciate your views. Unfortunately, you are correct in your assesment on the "my brain is bigger than your brain syndrom".On this site and only this site, we (conservatives) are out numbered. In the real world they are dying a hearty death.
hahahahahaha...

As for the liberals, don't let them get under your skin, we know how they
really feel. Bwhahahah.....

I have to add that after weeks of being bored with this website, I'm really getting a kick out of this thread. The "X-ray vision" picture of Bush was priceless. And justmom, you are a wild woman ... no wonder Marc is in love.

XoE

And this one is priceless, I will always like Xer, even when she's miffed at me.

I mentioned Marc and justmom because they are conservatives who have the balls to say what they think and make no apologies about it. Both of them have also been around the block a few times and had experiences to back up what they are saying. I respect them a great deal for this, even though I think that they are full of sh** a lot of the time.

XoE

Now, how's that for a compliment? It doesn't get much better than that!

Brian,
That was simply a lot of gibberish with no evidence. Give me proof that what you say is real you make statements but you back them with nothing where is your proof.

Cite a study do something besides spout pseudo scientific platitudes.

You are educating me, however, on just exactly what lengths individuals will go to in suspending reason to believe something they wish was true. You prove something I have allwasy suspected, lefties and bible thumpers are cut from the same cloth.

Finally correlation does not prove causation, the only evidence I have ever seen spouted in defense of astrology is spurious correlation and vague generalities.

Mr. Rush I don't know whether you are iggnorant, but you do suspend reason in order to make the world as you wish it was rather than seeing it for what it is.

Xer of evil I was never told anything about astrology I rejected it only after finding out what it was. Only one who wishes the world was governed by some set of mystical principles could possibly accept it.

Bubba:

That was simply a lot of gibberish with no evidence.

It certainly wasn't "gibberish," and you asked for a theory, so I gave you one. It was quite coherent and make perfect sense. No, I didn't give you any evidence, and I'm not going to, either, because frankly whether or not you believe in this stuff doesn't matter enough to me to go to the trouble. And it would be a considerable amount of trouble.

All I'm trying to get you to do here is to recognize that people who have experiences with magic, mysticism, and the paranormal, and who therefore believe in it, are not all stupid or irrational. I am neither.

In other words, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to get you to mind your manners.

You wont give me the proof because you don't have any. You are a such a phony. Yes without proof it is gibberish.

All I'm trying to get you to do here is to recognize that people who have experiences with magic, mysticism, and the paranormal, and who therefore believe in it, are not all stupid or irrational. I am neither.

I think you prove the contrary Brian.

You prove something I have allwasy suspected, lefties and bible thumpers are cut from the same cloth.

We're not discussing politics; we're discussing metaphysics. I take this position not as a "leftie," but as someone who has experienced a side of reality that you have not.

Many lefties are materalistic atheists every bit as hidebound and irrationally closed-minded as yourself. And to that extent, I guess they and bible thumpers -- and you -- are indeed cut from the same cloth. But mystics and bible thumpers are not.

Only one who wishes the world was governed by some set of mystical principles could possibly accept [astrology]

No. Only one who believes the world is governed by some set of mystical principles could possibly accept it. Your error is in supposing that belief to arise from desire, rather than from experience.

Actually, 20th to 21st century physics has a lot more in common with mysticism than it does with Newtonian mechanistic physics. Perhaps it's we, not you, who are better in tune with the real physical world.

Well good if you believe that physics would prove you right you will have no problem providing some proof of what you believe.


Yes I believe you are just like the bible thumpers because instead of being able to face the world as it is you so desperately want to believe that you suspend good judgment and accept things that no rational person would.

You wont give me the proof because you don't have any.

I won't give you the proof because it would take several hours of research and writing to present it in a coherent form, and then more hours of refutation while you nitpicked it to death over any excuse that was available, and I have better things to do with those hours.

Sure I have the proof. But why throw pearls before swine?

Yes without proof it is gibberish.

"Gibberish" means a string of syllables without actual linguistic content. By extension, a concept that doesn't hang together or convey logical meaning might also be called "gibberish." An unproven theory is not gibberish, it is merely an unproven theory.

I think you prove the contrary [i.e., that you are stupid and irrational] Brian.

Listen up, jackass. I've been on this board from approximately the time that you were first potty-trained, judging by your evident level of maturity. And even my worst detractors aren't sufficiently foolish as to call me stupid or irrational. Arrogant, yes. Outrageous, yes. Both of those are true. Also a Communist or someone who wants to see America destroyed, which aren't true. But you're the only one here who has actually tried to call me stupid, and all because of an intellectual prejudice that doesn't let you see beyond the end of your nose.

I suggest you check around with a few other people here before trying to make that label stick to me. You're not going to get anywhere with it, be assured.

You wont give me the proof because it does not exist, and frankly based on what I have seen you strike me as someone who is slightly above average in IQ desperately attempting to prove they are truly smart.

You just don't strike me as truly bright, and again I belive your belief in astrology is based on a desire to believe, and that you wont give me the proof becuause you don't have it.

If physics does prove you correct I truly doubt that you could do the math to understand it any way Brian.

In my opinion you are a wanna be intellectual and not rational.