Poking the Tarbaby

[strongaxe]

(Update: the trolls involved have linked this page from their article. So, to visitors from EncyclopediaDramatica: Welcome to my journal. Judge for yourselves if I'm over-reacting. And feel free to add your two cents worth, as long as you show your face (as the article authors have cowardly refused to do in several other related threads in other

Comments

[tonethbone]

Allow me to stick my two cents in here

[strongaxe]

Thank you.

I have tried to stay out of this whole quagmire up to this point, but that page was over the top.

And yes, that kind of screed does tend to have the opposite effect (much the way Fred "godhatesfags.com" Phelps just makes himself look much more ridiculous than anyone he lambastes).

[kcfireplug]

Thanks Tony.

But I still believe in Astrology.

[sixclaws_panda]

I'm a Pisces in the Western Horoscope, I'm a Serpent in the Chinese Horoscope, Jaguar in the Mayan Horoscope and a Willow tree in the Celtic one, I for one would have liked something less analytic but alas, four nerdy signs can't be wrong :)

[strongaxe]

Many years ago, I read about a study that some scientist had conducted: he collected up statistics about all the first-place olympic winners in Europe over a period of time, and correlated the position of the planets at the times of their birth. It turned out there WAS a slight correlation - running showed a slight correlation with Mercury, wrestling showed a slight correlation with Mars, etc.

However, when he added in the statistics for the second-place winners, the correlation disappears.

The conclusion one might reach from this is that the planets (not the star) DO have an EXTREMELY small influence, but that this influence is so small that it can only be measured at the bleeding edge.

This would tend to correspond to the world of physics - where planets DO exert gravity barely measurable on earth, especially at times of conjunctions. (So, basically, while Astrology may technically have some truth to it, it's vastly overrated.)