Alphax wrote: Ahh, but the verb "to place" is creationist. And if we accept the idea of a creator it logically follows that that entity should be capable of placing things randomly. Why shouldn't God have the right to participate in a crap game? There's no mention of astrology in [[Star]], which is just as well, despite the etymology of the word "astrology". The word "random" does not appear in the article either. On the other hand, astrologers in general are not likely to be interested in thermonuclear reactors. That's one of those unfortunate yellow on black pages that are always a problem to read. The whole thing seems like one interminable flame war with not much being said that has any value. In that sort of context anything which it says for or against astrology is not going to be very convincing or credible. I'm not interested in the debate over the individual kook's behaviour at all. Such matters appear all too frequently on the list. The phrase "the man is an ASTROLOGER" with the word in all capitals did catch my eye. That is irrelevant to the man's status as a kook. The persistence of astrology through the ages suggests to me that there are underlying germs of truth within it, but these are obscured by a tremendous amount of unfounded claims. Thus, specific claims that can be scientifically supported are very few, and some would even say that there are none at all. But failure to prove is not disproof. Unfortunately, people who claim to be promoting science make contrary statements that are even more preposterous than the claims made by astrologers. They impute ideas to astrology that were never expressed by the astrologers. They than make the perfectly accurate comment that the idea in question is ridiculous, and use that as evidence that all of astrology is nonsense. That's a straw man argument. It is falacious and unscientific. The use of imputed ideas seems typical of people who have no clue about the subject. Ec

I've just been over to Alt.Usenet.Kooks, and they're loving this, as you'd expect.