Astrology and its enemies: Regarding the Supermoon

[Kjell Pettersson]

In many, if not most, reports regarding the supermoon is labelled as
an idea of "conspiracy theorists", at least if the report is from a
major and non-astrological news source.

As if any conspiracy could affect the apogees or perigees of the moon?
Or any other astronomical/astrological data, for that matter.
Astronomers of a skeptical bent may like it or not, but astrologers
base their interpretations on astronomical realities. We should regard
this repeatedly made association with "conspiracies" as a rhetorical
device, made up by enemies to astrology.

They are simply doing what they can to have people dismiss the idea of
supermoon.

Beware of such "newspeak", and if you encounter it, correct it. The
source for the supermoon idea has got nothing at all to do with
conspiracy theorists, but is with an astrologer. (Read more here:
http://www.astropro.com/features/articles/supermoon/) This is a FACT.
Babbling about conspiracy theorists is DISINFORMATION, and also a kind
of defamation through guilt by association.

Again, beware of newspeak, and if you encounter it: correct it. One
does not have to believe in the veracity of the supermoon theory to
want to have facts correctly reported and disinformation stopped.

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Again, beware of newspeak, and if you encounter it: correct it.

I understand what you're saying and why, but I guess I'm just too "old"
to deal with that crap any more. I'll leave to the young-uns. :)

When I was on GEnie (Anyone remember them? We're talking when
CompuServe, Prodigy & AOL were just getting a start.), way back then, I
used to take on anyone and everyone. I even was known to go head-to-head
with the (in)famous James Randi on occasion.

Anyway, I stopped. I got tired of going round and round with
narrow-minded @$$holes who constantly made up BS excuses why the
evidence I presented was never good enough for, even though mine would
normally be considered scientifically sound in any other field, while
their own "evidence" was usually non-extant.

I realized I had better things to do than waste my time arguing with a
bunch of adolescent delinquents in white lab coats who refused to
believe there was anything more to the world than numbers and equations.

The "press" is even worse than the so-called "scientists". I really
think you'll just be wasting your breath. They will suck you dry and
leave you exausted.

As long as I know astrology works, I no longer care what anyone else thinks.

Todd

[donh]

Post by Todd Carnes
As long as I know astrology works, I no longer care what anyone else thinks.
Todd

THIS!!!! :-)

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Todd Carnes
As long as I know astrology works, I no longer care what anyone else thinks.

Well, the actions taken internationally in the 48 hours up to the supermoon
seem to add new meaning to the term lunatic.

Post by Todd Carnes
Todd

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes
As long as I know astrology works, I no longer care what anyone else thinks.

That is a good way of thinking about it, and myself I try to live by
focusing my energy on what is good, rather than what is bad. What
disturbs me in this case is rather that it is a kind of defamation.
Calling a good and serious astrologer for "conspiracy theorist" is
lying with the purpose of defamation. That is such a low-life way of
arguing against what you do not like it is strange people do not
realize how they dishonor themselves by doing it.

Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless. My
appeal is that we stand up for and support our fellow astrologers when
they are unfairly attacked (without "feeding the trolls" though!).
Knowing we have skeptics reading this forum, I thought this was a good
place to speak my truth.

We must stand by one another, lest they do to our entire community
what they have done to alt.astrology.

/Kjell

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by Todd Carnes
As long as I know astrology works, I no longer care what anyone else thinks.

That is a good way of thinking about it, and myself I try to live by
focusing my energy on what is good, rather than what is bad. What
disturbs me in this case is rather that it is a kind of defamation.
Calling a good and serious astrologer for "conspiracy theorist" is
lying with the purpose of defamation. That is such a low-life way of
arguing against what you do not like it is strange people do not
realize how they dishonor themselves by doing it.
Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

This is such an ancient argument, and I'm still not willing to let
that lie persist.

You are missing his contribution to that state of affairs,
notwithstanding his claims to the contrary.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless.

That is where this particular astrologer missed the point.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My
appeal is that we stand up for and support our fellow astrologers when
they are unfairly attacked (without "feeding the trolls" though!).

There was no way to do both, at that time.

The only thing that really works is to stop trying to convince anyone
about astrology, as you have pointed out.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Knowing we have skeptics reading this forum, I thought this was a good
place to speak my truth.
We must stand by one another, lest they do to our entire community
what they have done to alt.astrology.

The astrologer who seemed so unfairly attacked alienated much of his
own community.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

This is such an ancient argument, and I'm still not willing to let
that lie persist.
You are missing his contribution to that state of affairs,
notwithstanding his claims to the contrary.

I am aware that I am talking about a person who is not "sinless".
However, I actually took that into consideration when writing my post.
I don't think one should have to be beyond all reproach. I actually
don't think it is even possible. I have been dealing with fanatics
over the Internet elsewhere, and the method is to pick a victim and
simply wear him out until he gives in and does something they can use
for a target, forevermore. Not even angels have the patience to deal
with people who work like this, and even less when they are working in
team too. Some fall down earlier, others later, but if you are
targeted by a team of mobbers, sooner or later you will act
impulsively, and that will seal your downfall.

That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.
For instance when it has to do with the extremely controversial
subject of astrology...! "The world is on fire and people are
starving, but let's take down these nasty astrologers first!"

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless.

That is where this particular astrologer missed the point.

But in a forum set up for discussing astrology, he should not even
have to hit that point. HE is in the right, they were all the way in
the wrong. (Reservation that I am a latecomer, but from all that I
have seen, including peeps into the archives.)

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My
appeal is that we stand up for and support our fellow astrologers when
they are unfairly attacked (without "feeding the trolls" though!).

There was no way to do both, at that time.

That is possible. I did not mean to say that anyone did things wrong
back then. It was just that in association with these fanatics trying
to portray Richard Nolle as a "conspiracy theorist" and around the
same time visiting alt.astrology and seeing their drivel there that
their utter viciousness dawned on me. As I said, I have met with
fanatics who stop for nothing before, and if they can destroy a
person's actual civil life -- not only their online presence -- they
will do it.

Post by CFA
The astrologer who seemed so unfairly attacked alienated much of his
own community.

Possible. My point was not really about him, but about who the people
who made the attacks are, what they stand for and how their modus
operandi works. Of course they chose the person they perceived would
give them most "gain" per attack. But it could have been whomever. Had
this person not been there, someone else would have become the target.

So it is not even personal from them, which follows naturally from
them being fanatics. They probably do not even see astrologers as 100%
human beings, or individuals, astrologers probably not being
"rational" enough to count as human. And having taken the step that
demonizes and separates the victim from normal people... then suddenly
every possible kind of attack and viciousness can be justified. People
convinced they are in the right make the worst fanatics, stopping for
nothing.

And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one. Or why is it that alt.astrology nowadays is
not a forum for astrologers?

/Kjell

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
But in a forum set up for discussing astrology, he should not even
have to hit that point. HE is in the right, they were all the way in
the wrong. (Reservation that I am a latecomer, but from all that I
have seen, including peeps into the archives.)

Ed... errr.... the "unnamed astrologer", never started anything... the
so-called skeptics did.

(That's not to say he didn't occasionally do things to perpetuate and
exacerbate things... but he truly was provoked.)

Todd

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It was just that in association with these fanatics trying
to portray Richard Nolle as a "conspiracy theorist" and around the
same time visiting alt.astrology and seeing their drivel there that
their utter viciousness dawned on me.

Ohhhh.... I thought you were talking about someone else. Of course, I
don't think Richard deserves such treatment either. He has never been
anything but polite to me.

Personally, I learned to stay away from alt.astrology years and YEARS ago.

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It was just that in association with these fanatics trying
to portray Richard Nolle as a "conspiracy theorist" and around the
same time visiting alt.astrology and seeing their drivel there that
their utter viciousness dawned on me.

Ohhhh.... I thought you were talking about someone else. Of course, I
don't think Richard deserves such treatment either. He has never been
anything but polite to me.

I've been talking about two persons. One of them is Richard, the other
is the person attacked in a.a. I think you got me right before but
that I confused you with my wording here.

/K

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one.

Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what has happened...

The only astrologer over there that still actively defends astrology is
also the only astrologer that consistently draws attacks from his own
peers - whether deserved or not. He truly is fighting alone.

Todd

[CFA]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one.

Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what has happened...
The only astrologer over there that still actively defends astrology is
also the only astrologer that consistently draws attacks from his own
peers - whether deserved or not. He truly is fighting alone.

Because he chose a way to deal with it that has been proven repeatedly
to not work, including alienating the whole rest of the group of
proponents.

Neither point ever made any impression on him, from what I can tell.

Post by Todd Carnes
Todd

Ken

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.

However, too much moderation in a forum is bad too. When over-done, it
stifles creativity and discourages participation - the exact opposite
effects that it is intended to have.

It is a difficult balance to maintain.

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.

However, too much moderation in a forum is bad too. When over-done, it
stifles creativity and discourages participation - the exact opposite
effects that it is intended to have.

Yes, you are right. But I think even such strictness may have its
place, when you are at the stage of removing the weeds with their
roots.

Post by Todd Carnes
It is a difficult balance to maintain.

Indeed. Hopefully practice makes perfect!

/K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

This is such an ancient argument, and I'm still not willing to let
that lie persist.
You are missing his contribution to that state of affairs,
notwithstanding his claims to the contrary.

I am aware that I am talking about a person who is not "sinless".
However, I actually took that into consideration when writing my post.
I don't think one should have to be beyond all reproach. I actually
don't think it is even possible. I have been dealing with fanatics
over the Internet elsewhere, and the method is to pick a victim and
simply wear him out until he gives in and does something they can use
for a target, forevermore. Not even angels have the patience to deal
with people who work like this, and even less when they are working in
team too. Some fall down earlier, others later, but if you are
targeted by a team of mobbers, sooner or later you will act
impulsively, and that will seal your downfall.

My observation and direct experience is that it's not a sudden thing.
Skeptics are drawn to topics like astrology like moths to flames. I
like to think of them as 'perception checking', rather than enemies.
They help me keep it practical. It's simply too much effort otherwise.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.
For instance when it has to do with the extremely controversial
subject of astrology...! "The world is on fire and people are
starving, but let's take down these nasty astrologers first!"

Overall, I don't feel sorry for astrologers. We know what we're doing
when we start buying into the idea. We're not victims of our choices.
Part of staying sane in that choice is knowing how to handle the
criticism of those who don't believe (and that's one of their
legitimate observations: it's almost entirely belief, from the
standpoint of (lack of) scientific evidence).

Hell, most of my friends balked at it when I started studying. But
that didn't mean we went to philosophical war with each other, though
some of them didn't stay my friends for much longer, either :-).

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless.

That is where this particular astrologer missed the point.

But in a forum set up for discussing astrology, he should not even
have to hit that point. HE is in the right, they were all the way in
the wrong. (Reservation that I am a latecomer, but from all that I
have seen, including peeps into the archives.)

That forum is unmoderated. That means a person taking a stand is
ideally prepared to back it up. That doesn't necessarily require
arguing with those who disagree. And, as you note, a topic as
controversial as astrology is going to draw some pretty controversial
opposition, so the temptation is high at times.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My
appeal is that we stand up for and support our fellow astrologers when
they are unfairly attacked (without "feeding the trolls" though!).

There was no way to do both, at that time.

That is possible. I did not mean to say that anyone did things wrong
back then. It was just that in association with these fanatics trying
to portray Richard Nolle as a "conspiracy theorist" and around the
same time visiting alt.astrology and seeing their drivel there that
their utter viciousness dawned on me. As I said, I have met with
fanatics who stop for nothing before, and if they can destroy a
person's actual civil life -- not only their online presence -- they
will do it.

You are missing the larger picture. Richard is pretty much immune from
the temptation to engage in a war of words. He was around for all the
excitement when it was happening.

It's hard to pin down who first posted real life private information,
but one proponent was doing it at the time, too.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The astrologer who seemed so unfairly attacked alienated much of his
own community.

Possible. My point was not really about him, but about who the people
who made the attacks are, what they stand for and how their modus
operandi works. Of course they chose the person they perceived would
give them most "gain" per attack. But it could have been whomever. Had
this person not been there, someone else would have become the target.

But not without active participation. I was caught up in that
experience for a while. It's very simple: don't try to convince
someone that astrology has any value, if they don't want to know it.

Astrologers and proponents who didn't respond to the trolls were
largely left alone. That's how it works.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
So it is not even personal from them, which follows naturally from
them being fanatics. They probably do not even see astrologers as 100%
human beings, or individuals, astrologers probably not being
"rational" enough to count as human. And having taken the step that
demonizes and separates the victim from normal people... then suddenly
every possible kind of attack and viciousness can be justified. People
convinced they are in the right make the worst fanatics, stopping for
nothing.

My observation was that only the fanatic proponents called their
critics fanatics. Plenty of us found a way to coexist in the group
without being attacked (and actually became friends with some of the
critics), and without giving up our belief and discussion of
astrology.

The problem is, of course, that discussion that heated and that
prolonged eventually melts a group down. People get bored of the fight
and leave.

Even while it was still active, every significant skeptic in the group
made attempts to drop the fight and was rebuffed every time.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one. Or why is it that alt.astrology nowadays is
not a forum for astrologers?

I think you're creating a war that doesn't have to happen. This is not
a road you want to go down.

aa is deserted today because people on both sides got tired of the
endless bickering. No one won the 'war'- people just went elsewhere.

And I credit the proponents as a whole with fouling their own group.
Overall, we couldn't resist the temptation to argue. Critics are going
to do what they do- I don't expect them to change. But the moment the
proponents go after the critics, a group is doomed. I've watched it
happen in other groups.

Astrologers can support each other by remembering the point: discuss,
teach, understand, and practice astrology. Refuse to argue about its
validity. That's not the same as *discussing* its validity, but the
distinction was so tenuous that even discussing its validity was
prohibited here in aamod for years.

To me, that's just philosophical weakness. Who cares what 'they' think
about astrology? I know what my experiences have been, and I doubt
they'll convince me those experiences were meaningless.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

This is such an ancient argument, and I'm still not willing to let
that lie persist.
You are missing his contribution to that state of affairs,
notwithstanding his claims to the contrary.

I am aware that I am talking about a person who is not "sinless".
However, I actually took that into consideration when writing my post.
I don't think one should have to be beyond all reproach. I actually
don't think it is even possible. I have been dealing with fanatics
over the Internet elsewhere, and the method is to pick a victim and
simply wear him out until he gives in and does something they can use
for a target, forevermore. Not even angels have the patience to deal
with people who work like this, and even less when they are working in
team too. Some fall down earlier, others later, but if you are
targeted by a team of mobbers, sooner or later you will act
impulsively, and that will seal your downfall.

My observation and direct experience is that it's not a sudden thing.
Skeptics are drawn to topics like astrology like moths to flames. I
like to think of them as 'perception checking', rather than enemies.
They help me keep it practical. It's simply too much effort otherwise.

As long as they stay with argument, that is a wise way of handling it.
But when they start with defamatory campaigns, where astrology is no
longer even a part of what they come up with, the possible usefulness
of their actions becomes nil.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.
For instance when it has to do with the extremely controversial
subject of astrology...! "The world is on fire and people are
starving, but let's take down these nasty astrologers first!"

Overall, I don't feel sorry for astrologers.

Skeptics arguing in the word's proper sense are not to be complained
about. Again, it is when they turn nasty. But perhaps we have
different perceptions here. I am perfectly convinced that trolls over
at a.a. are also, at least to a great part, skeptics. If you see them
as another group, then we have somewhere down the line made different
conclusions about what it is that we see.

Post by CFA
We know what we're doing
when we start buying into the idea. We're not victims of our choices.
Part of staying sane in that choice is knowing how to handle the
criticism of those who don't believe (and that's one of their
legitimate observations: it's almost entirely belief, from the
standpoint of (lack of) scientific evidence).

Agreed. Argument is 100% OK.

Post by CFA
Hell, most of my friends balked at it when I started studying. But
that didn't mean we went to philosophical war with each other, though
some of them didn't stay my friends for much longer, either :-).

I'd say that astrologers in general are more philosophical (once,
saying someone was a "philosopher" could be to imply he was an
astrologer! ditto if you said he dealt with "mathematics"). Today the
reason might be that we have to take a stand on philosophical issues,
working against the Weltanschaung of the Zeitgeist.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless.

That is where this particular astrologer missed the point.

Possible. But that does not earn him the defamatory campaigns he has
become the victim of. And here victim IS a proper designation!

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
But in a forum set up for discussing astrology, he should not even
have to hit that point. HE is in the right, they were all the way in
the wrong. (Reservation that I am a latecomer, but from all that I
have seen, including peeps into the archives.)

That forum is unmoderated. That means a person taking a stand is
ideally prepared to back it up. That doesn't necessarily require
arguing with those who disagree. And, as you note, a topic as
controversial as astrology is going to draw some pretty controversial
opposition, so the temptation is high at times.

I am not asking for an undisturbed paradise where we would never enter
opposition. Considering that astrologers, per se, are a very diverse
group (to say the least!), more often that not disagreeing with one
another, such a haven of peace could not be achieved anyhow.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My
appeal is that we stand up for and support our fellow astrologers when
they are unfairly attacked (without "feeding the trolls" though!).

There was no way to do both, at that time.

That is possible. I did not mean to say that anyone did things wrong
back then. It was just that in association with these fanatics trying
to portray Richard Nolle as a "conspiracy theorist" and around the
same time visiting alt.astrology and seeing their drivel there that
their utter viciousness dawned on me. As I said, I have met with
fanatics who stop for nothing before, and if they can destroy a
person's actual civil life -- not only their online presence -- they
will do it.

You are missing the larger picture. Richard is pretty much immune from
the temptation to engage in a war of words. He was around for all the
excitement when it was happening.

I do not at all involve Richard in the discussion about what is going
on in a.a. I have no doubt about him in any way. That I mentioned
these examples together was because of the similarity of the actions
of their enemies, not because of any other semblance, real or
imagined.

Post by CFA
It's hard to pin down who first posted real life private information,
but one proponent was doing it at the time, too.

I must again say that I was not around in the beginning. When it
concerns a.a. I came very late to the party, and I was mostly a wall-
flower too.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The astrologer who seemed so unfairly attacked alienated much of his
own community.

Possible. My point was not really about him, but about who the people
who made the attacks are, what they stand for and how their modus
operandi works. Of course they chose the person they perceived would
give them most "gain" per attack. But it could have been whomever. Had
this person not been there, someone else would have become the target.

But not without active participation. I was caught up in that
experience for a while. It's very simple: don't try to convince
someone that astrology has any value, if they don't want to know it.
Astrologers and proponents who didn't respond to the trolls were
largely left alone. That's how it works.

But that does not absolve the attacker from having been an attacker.
Someone posting defamatory posts cannot be said to be innocent
"because the victim in some way could be said to have 'asked for it'".
It may be how it works, but when judging what happens, we cannot only
say "the victim brought it upon himself". I am judging the attacks,
and the attackers, and in whatever sense they could be said to have
been provoked, this must weigh very much less than the sense in which
the "victim" could be said to have been provoked.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
So it is not even personal from them, which follows naturally from
them being fanatics. They probably do not even see astrologers as 100%
human beings, or individuals, astrologers probably not being
"rational" enough to count as human. And having taken the step that
demonizes and separates the victim from normal people... then suddenly
every possible kind of attack and viciousness can be justified. People
convinced they are in the right make the worst fanatics, stopping for
nothing.

My observation was that only the fanatic proponents called their
critics fanatics.

You have a point there, but I think you are overly kind to those who
oppose us.

An example:
A troll previous active in THIS group posted me spam virus after
having been rejected in moderation. That is WAY beyond arguing
astrology. That is pure and sheer fanatic hostility, with the actual
intent to create some real hurt.

And I know for certain this person was active also in a.a., though the
Charter prohibits me from discussing the details (we would veer far to
OT, and have to discuss moderation practices also).

Post by CFA
Plenty of us found a way to coexist in the group
without being attacked (and actually became friends with some of the
critics), and without giving up our belief and discussion of
astrology.
The problem is, of course, that discussion that heated and that
prolonged eventually melts a group down. People get bored of the fight
and leave.

And those who oppose us did in part have this as a goal.

Post by CFA
Even while it was still active, every significant skeptic in the group
made attempts to drop the fight and was rebuffed every time.

I feel I have to stress that I am NOT, emphatically not, saying that
this is how every skeptic is. I know there have been decent ones
around, and know some myself. I am NOT trying to demonize them, but I
DO think that demonizing us is an ingrained part of their subculture.
Examples from Dawkins or Russell could be presented.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one. Or why is it that alt.astrology nowadays is
not a forum for astrologers?

I think you're creating a war that doesn't have to happen. This is not
a road you want to go down.

I think that war is already upon us. My point of view is not that we
attack the attackers, but that we care for those wounded.

Post by CFA
aa is deserted today because people on both sides got tired of the
endless bickering. No one won the 'war'- people just went elsewhere.
And I credit the proponents as a whole with fouling their own group.

That is likely to be the mechanics of it. But that is not where the
whole thing originated. And, being astrologers, we should know that
everything is decided in the point of origin, in the "birth moment".
Every action has fruits, and we should look for the first action, not
for the reactions, when we judge a process. Because it is the first
action that initiates the process.

And the first action was attack, not defense. Of this I am certain,
though, yet again, I was not present.

Post by CFA
Overall, we couldn't resist the temptation to argue. Critics are going
to do what they do- I don't expect them to change. But the moment the
proponents go after the critics, a group is doomed. I've watched it
happen in other groups.

Criticism is okay. Defamation and lies are not.

Post by CFA
Astrologers can support each other by remembering the point: discuss,
teach, understand, and practice astrology. Refuse to argue about its
validity. That's not the same as *discussing* its validity, but the
distinction was so tenuous that even discussing its validity was
prohibited here in aamod for years.

Yes, the distinctions can be difficult to maintain, even if you are
vigilant. And I think that your basic point is one that I agree with:
the last defense will always be to see what oneself does that might
enable an opponent, and to stop doing this. But that will not absolve
the opponent from having done what they did. The person who posted me
that virus, to my personal email, may have felt entitled to because I
rejected their post -- but, no, that is wrong. They will still have to
carry the guilt, or karma if you will, of their actions. It cannot be
put on me. The same for Richard; it is not HIS fault that the
supermoon gets connected with "conspiracy theorists". And the poster
in a.a. whom we have discussing, he may have been doing things that
enabled the attackers. Nevertheless, HE cannot be faulted for THEIR
actions. The victim is never the murderer, no matter if they gave them
a lift or did something else that opened the door for the murderer.

Post by CFA
To me, that's just philosophical weakness. Who cares what 'they' think
about astrology? I know what my experiences have been, and I doubt
they'll convince me those experiences were meaningless.

"They" can ***** and %€/(?=@@ themselves. They'll all shut up when I
have published my work on why and how astrology works anyhow. ;-)

/K

P.S. And serious skeptics out there, not employing methods described
in my posts, do not feel targeted. You are not. /K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Similarly, I was visiting alt.astrology recently, and saw some nasty
posts directed to a long-time poster. There has been a defamatory
campaign of some fifteen years against this astrologer.

This is such an ancient argument, and I'm still not willing to let
that lie persist.
You are missing his contribution to that state of affairs,
notwithstanding his claims to the contrary.

I am aware that I am talking about a person who is not "sinless".
However, I actually took that into consideration when writing my post.
I don't think one should have to be beyond all reproach. I actually
don't think it is even possible. I have been dealing with fanatics
over the Internet elsewhere, and the method is to pick a victim and
simply wear him out until he gives in and does something they can use
for a target, forevermore. Not even angels have the patience to deal
with people who work like this, and even less when they are working in
team too. Some fall down earlier, others later, but if you are
targeted by a team of mobbers, sooner or later you will act
impulsively, and that will seal your downfall.

My observation and direct experience is that it's not a sudden thing.
Skeptics are drawn to topics like astrology like moths to flames. I
like to think of them as 'perception checking', rather than enemies.
They help me keep it practical. It's simply too much effort otherwise.

As long as they stay with argument, that is a wise way of handling it.
But when they start with defamatory campaigns, where astrology is no
longer even a part of what they come up with, the possible usefulness
of their actions becomes nil.

Always was nil, except for their own entertainment.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is why moderation is necessary in fora that attract these people.
For instance when it has to do with the extremely controversial
subject of astrology...! "The world is on fire and people are
starving, but let's take down these nasty astrologers first!"

Overall, I don't feel sorry for astrologers.

Skeptics arguing in the word's proper sense are not to be complained
about. Again, it is when they turn nasty. But perhaps we have
different perceptions here. I am perfectly convinced that trolls over
at a.a. are also, at least to a great part, skeptics. If you see them
as another group, then we have somewhere down the line made different
conclusions about what it is that we see.

The rate at which hostilities escalated pretty much eclipsed
reasonable discussion between sides. It started before the skeptics
showed up, though.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
In both these cases, we clearly see the ethical standards of our
enemies. They even brag about their methods on their websites. I just
could not help myself when I saw yet another case. My appeal is not
for correcting skeptics and such, that is, I think, hopeless.

That is where this particular astrologer missed the point.

Possible. But that does not earn him the defamatory campaigns he has
become the victim of. And here victim IS a proper designation!

He invited it. He was pounding on other proponents before the skeptics
arrived in the group.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Astrologers and proponents who didn't respond to the trolls were
largely left alone. That's how it works.

But that does not absolve the attacker from having been an attacker.
Someone posting defamatory posts cannot be said to be innocent
"because the victim in some way could be said to have 'asked for it'".
It may be how it works, but when judging what happens, we cannot only
say "the victim brought it upon himself". I am judging the attacks,
and the attackers, and in whatever sense they could be said to have
been provoked, this must weigh very much less than the sense in which
the "victim" could be said to have been provoked.

I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
So it is not even personal from them, which follows naturally from
them being fanatics. They probably do not even see astrologers as 100%
human beings, or individuals, astrologers probably not being
"rational" enough to count as human. And having taken the step that
demonizes and separates the victim from normal people... then suddenly
every possible kind of attack and viciousness can be justified. People
convinced they are in the right make the worst fanatics, stopping for
nothing.

My observation was that only the fanatic proponents called their
critics fanatics.

You have a point there, but I think you are overly kind to those who
oppose us.
A troll previous active in THIS group posted me spam virus after
having been rejected in moderation. That is WAY beyond arguing
astrology. That is pure and sheer fanatic hostility, with the actual
intent to create some real hurt.

This might be absolutely true, and it would surprise me, actually.
I've been a lot more involved in all this than you - taking a pretty
adversarial position at one point - and I've never had any trouble off
either group with anyone except the one astrologer.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And I know for certain this person was active also in a.a., though the
Charter prohibits me from discussing the details (we would veer far to
OT, and have to discuss moderation practices also).

Sorry to hear you had any problems.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Plenty of us found a way to coexist in the group
without being attacked (and actually became friends with some of the
critics), and without giving up our belief and discussion of
astrology.
The problem is, of course, that discussion that heated and that
prolonged eventually melts a group down. People get bored of the fight
and leave.

And those who oppose us did in part have this as a goal.

Most of them - not really. They were very clear they quite enjoyed
poking sticks at certain members of the group, and they would very
much miss the entertainment value it provided if the people left.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Even while it was still active, every significant skeptic in the group
made attempts to drop the fight and was rebuffed every time.

I feel I have to stress that I am NOT, emphatically not, saying that
this is how every skeptic is. I know there have been decent ones
around, and know some myself. I am NOT trying to demonize them, but I
DO think that demonizing us is an ingrained part of their subculture.
Examples from Dawkins or Russell could be presented.

I suppose, but I don't take it personally. These are things people
couldn't or wouldn't face, before they knew you or I. So, in a way, it
all predates our presence. We represent something uncomfortable for
them. But that's part of exploring new territory, if for no other
reason than it can cause big change in one's view of life, and
astrologers and those who practice it threaten the status quo.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with them
directly, but we can try to stand by one another. Otherwise they will
pick us down, one by one. Or why is it that alt.astrology nowadays is
not a forum for astrologers?

I think you're creating a war that doesn't have to happen. This is not
a road you want to go down.

I think that war is already upon us. My point of view is not that we
attack the attackers, but that we care for those wounded.

Okay, though I more interested in seeing if they can identify why they
got hit by shrapnel so that they don't do it again. Skeptics aren't
going to change (or go away) - what has to change, to eliminate how
the interaction goes, is proponents' mind set about the relationship.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
aa is deserted today because people on both sides got tired of the
endless bickering. No one won the 'war'- people just went elsewhere.
And I credit the proponents as a whole with fouling their own group.

That is likely to be the mechanics of it. But that is not where the
whole thing originated.

No, it didn't.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And, being astrologers, we should know that
everything is decided in the point of origin, in the "birth moment".
Every action has fruits, and we should look for the first action, not
for the reactions, when we judge a process. Because it is the first
action that initiates the process.
And the first action was attack, not defense. Of this I am certain,
though, yet again, I was not present.

No, it wasn't the skeptics' attacks. It was tension between the
astrologers in the group that got expanded into the conversation with
the skeptics.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Overall, we couldn't resist the temptation to argue. Critics are going
to do what they do- I don't expect them to change. But the moment the
proponents go after the critics, a group is doomed. I've watched it
happen in other groups.

Criticism is okay. Defamation and lies are not.

The best choices are still: ignore the criticism, unless it rises to
actionable level. If so, contact law enforcement. This assumes
reasonable discourse is impossible.

For many of us in aa it was possible, and it did happen the whole time
a few of the other proponents were involved in nuclear war.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Astrologers can support each other by remembering the point: discuss,
teach, understand, and practice astrology. Refuse to argue about its
validity. That's not the same as *discussing* its validity, but the
distinction was so tenuous that even discussing its validity was
prohibited here in aamod for years.

Yes, the distinctions can be difficult to maintain, even if you are
the last defense will always be to see what oneself does that might
enable an opponent, and to stop doing this. But that will not absolve
the opponent from having done what they did. The person who posted me
that virus, to my personal email, may have felt entitled to because I
rejected their post -- but, no, that is wrong. They will still have to
carry the guilt, or karma if you will, of their actions. It cannot be
put on me. The same for Richard; it is not HIS fault that the
supermoon gets connected with "conspiracy theorists".

No, but he, and we, play in that sand box. There are always going to
be nut jobs at the fringes of such a controversial topic.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And the poster
in a.a. whom we have discussing, he may have been doing things that
enabled the attackers. Nevertheless, HE cannot be faulted for THEIR
actions. The victim is never the murderer, no matter if they gave them
a lift or did something else that opened the door for the murderer.

He invited, enabled, and encouraged his treatment. He insisted on
getting revenge, attempting to rid the news group of those who
disagreed, and even reporting other proponents for abuse to their
providers for mildly disagreeing with him. It was WAY over the top,
and I don't see him for a second as a victim. Of COURSE he attracted
the best and brightest trolls in the whole of usenet.

He now has a usenet-wide reputation for his abuse of the abuse
process, sending hundreds or thousands of complaints to providers and
local, state, and federal agencies, many of whom had no connection
(the Federal Trade Commission? The FBI?), and repeatedly and
constantly ignoring the best objective advise from admins in the net
abuse groups to LET IT GO.

You may have never seen 'obsessive' in such three-dimensional glory.
It was unbelievable.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
To me, that's just philosophical weakness. Who cares what 'they' think
about astrology? I know what my experiences have been, and I doubt
they'll convince me those experiences were meaningless.

have published my work on why and how astrology works anyhow. ;-)

Go Kjell! ;-)

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K
P.S. And serious skeptics out there, not employing methods described
in my posts, do not feel targeted. You are not. /K

Ken

[Todd Carnes]

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

Personally, I think the best answer is to completely delete the
alt.astrology newsgroup.

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

Personally, I think the best answer is to completely delete the
alt.astrology newsgroup.
Todd

Do you think that is possible? Do you have any idea of how it could be
done?

/K

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

Personally, I think the best answer is to completely delete the
alt.astrology newsgroup.
Todd

Do you think that is possible? Do you have any idea of how it could be
done?
/K

I'm pretty sure "possible". Unfortunately, I don't know how it would be
done. I've never investigated the issue that far.

I just get disgusted with aa sometimes and feel like I'd enjoy pulling
the plug on it. :)

Todd

[CFA]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

Personally, I think the best answer is to completely delete the
alt.astrology newsgroup.
Todd

Do you think that is possible? Do you have any idea of how it could be
done?
/K

I'm pretty sure "possible". Unfortunately, I don't know how it would be
done. I've never investigated the issue that far.

Every newsgroup server on the planet would have to delete it from the
list of groups they carry.

Post by Todd Carnes
I just get disgusted with aa sometimes and feel like I'd enjoy pulling
the plug on it. :)
Todd

Ken

[Todd Carnes]

Post by CFA

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to
run them out of the group or get them to change is asking for
constant, unwinnable war

Personally, I think the best answer is to completely delete the
alt.astrology newsgroup.
Todd

Do you think that is possible? Do you have any idea of how it could be
done?
/K

I'm pretty sure "possible". Unfortunately, I don't know how it would be
done. I've never investigated the issue that far.

Every newsgroup server on the planet would have to delete it from the
list of groups they carry.

I'm sure that just as every newsgroup server on the planet can be told to
add a new group and/or a new message to the queue, they can be told to
drop a newsgroup from the queue just as easily. I just haven't looked up
the nntp protocol to research the specifics.

Now, trying to get Google Groups to follow the rules... That's a whole
other ballgame. :)

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes
Now, trying to get Google Groups to follow the rules... That's a whole
other ballgame. :)

Could we get a change through Usenet servers, I don't think we have to
worry much about Google Groups. The thing is that the worst offenders
in a.a. are most likely not interested in being identifiable in any
way, and to post through Google you must have a Google Account. Even
if some might get one, just to try to prolong the end, they will not
be able to impersonate others through such an account.

And it might even be that if they are connected with a Google Account,
they can be tracked down and held responsible for their actions.
Somehow I gather they are not ready for that.

OTOH, Sweden has now rather draconic laws regarding crimes perpetrated
on/via the Internet, possibly making it possible to track whatever
passes Swedish servers. The law is controversial, but if it gets to
stay, we may perhaps be able to track these people down within a
reasonable time. That would possibly be a reason not to have a.a
annulled yet, though I will still side with getting rid of it.

/K

[Todd Carnes]

Post by CFA
Every newsgroup server on the planet would have to delete it from the
list of groups they carry.

Found it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rmgroup_message

Now we just need to find out who has aa's hierarchy key. :)

Todd

[CFA]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by CFA
Every newsgroup server on the planet would have to delete it from the
list of groups they carry.

Found it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rmgroup_message
Now we just need to find out who has aa's hierarchy key. :)

Well... From that page: "Newsgroup maintenance of the main Usenet
hierarchies (Big 8 and regional hierarchies) is done through signed
control messages." IOW, alt.xx newsgroups aren't included.

It's a lot like legislation: once it's created (a law or a news
group), it's almost impossible to un-create it.

But good luck anyway :-)

Post by Todd Carnes
Todd

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

[---]

IŽll answer tomorrow, or at least very soon.

/K

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA
The rate at which hostilities escalated pretty much eclipsed
reasonable discussion between sides. It started before the skeptics
showed up, though.

I never said astrologers all love one another. But the topic I want to
bring forward in this discussion is our *enemies*, not the ways in
which we ourselves make things difficult. Your focus is upon how WE
could improve -- which we certainly can -- but my focus is upon what
people targets us, how they do it and why they do it.

Post by CFA
He invited it. He was pounding on other proponents before the skeptics
arrived in the group.

Again; there will always be internal disagreements. Some milder, some
deeply held convictions clashing. We are not (unlike skeptics?) all
similar.

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

They are launching this war on us on thousands of websites, no matter
whether or not we respond to them. It may not be "smart" to defend
oneself against defamatory attacks, but it certainly is not WRONG.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And I know for certain this person was active also in a.a., though the
Charter prohibits me from discussing the details (we would veer far to
OT, and have to discuss moderation practices also).

Sorry to hear you had any problems.

Now you are missing the point. My point here is that no matter how
"innocent" you are, they will attack. If there is not a suitable
target to start with, it will be created. It therefore does not matter
whether or not someone has a history that could be said to "justify"
attacks, because they, or someone else, would have been attacked
anyway.

I do not think the current state of a.a. can be blamed in internal
dissension among astrologer to any significant degree.

Post by CFA
Most of them - not really. They were very clear they quite enjoyed
poking sticks at certain members of the group, and they would very
much miss the entertainment value it provided if the people left.

How do you know? Even now, when the person we have been talking about
is barely present in that newsgroup, they STILL attack. They fake his
presence with phony posts, and attack him. I don't think they do so
now because they have changed from way back then, I think this shows
what they were always like.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Even while it was still active, every significant skeptic in the group
made attempts to drop the fight and was rebuffed every time.

I feel I have to stress that I am NOT, emphatically not, saying that
this is how every skeptic is. I know there have been decent ones
around, and know some myself. I am NOT trying to demonize them, but I
DO think that demonizing us is an ingrained part of their subculture.
Examples from Dawkins or Russell could be presented.

I suppose, but I don't take it personally. These are things people
couldn't or wouldn't face, before they knew you or I. So, in a way, it
all predates our presence. We represent something uncomfortable for
them. But that's part of exploring new territory, if for no other
reason than it can cause big change in one's view of life, and
astrologers and those who practice it threaten the status quo.

Your analysis is sound, but it does not absolve those in this
subculture that perpetuate this war on us with clearly unethical
methods. We are not guilty as charged because we are "exploring new
territory" (or old territory). Others do without meeting with
defamation. We do not deserve to be treated like this. And to point
that out is an act of self-affirmation, not an act of denial.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think that war is already upon us. My point of view is not that we
attack the attackers, but that we care for those wounded.

Okay, though I more interested in seeing if they can identify why they
got hit by shrapnel so that they don't do it again. Skeptics aren't
going to change (or go away) - what has to change, to eliminate how
the interaction goes, is proponents' mind set about the relationship.

I disagree. Saying skeptics can't or wont change is believing too
little of them. They are humans too, and I am certain that appealing
to humane values and codes of conduct is not a meaningless venture.

Post by CFA
No, it wasn't the skeptics' attacks. It was tension between the
astrologers in the group that got expanded into the conversation with
the skeptics.

They USED that tension. "Divide et impera." That still does not make
defamation OK.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Criticism is okay. Defamation and lies are not.

The best choices are still: ignore the criticism, unless it rises to
actionable level.

I would say that the current level of defamation of the astrologer we
have mentioned is WAY beyond that level (and have been for long). Only
now everyone is so desensitized to the whole thing they do not see it
for what it is any more.

Post by CFA
If so, contact law enforcement. This assumes
reasonable discourse is impossible.

---

Post by CFA
No, but he, and we, play in that sand box. There are always going to
be nut jobs at the fringes of such a controversial topic.

And WE are not responsible for THEIR actions.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And the poster
in a.a. whom we have discussing, he may have been doing things that
enabled the attackers. Nevertheless, HE cannot be faulted for THEIR
actions. The victim is never the murderer, no matter if they gave them
a lift or did something else that opened the door for the murderer.

He invited, enabled, and encouraged his treatment. He insisted on
getting revenge, attempting to rid the news group of those who
disagreed, and even reporting other proponents for abuse to their
providers for mildly disagreeing with him. It was WAY over the top,
and I don't see him for a second as a victim. Of COURSE he attracted
the best and brightest trolls in the whole of usenet.

Now you are faulting him for reacting too strongly and too early. But
would you say that the current level of defamation is not over the
top, should in principle be possible to use law enforcement to punish
the guilty?

You are completely missing that the reason this has gone over the top
is that the attackers consciously chose someone that would give them
the most "bang for the buck". To target a person because of that is
doubly sinister rather than something that would absolve the
attacker.

Post by CFA
He now has a usenet-wide reputation for his abuse of the abuse
process, sending hundreds or thousands of complaints to providers and
local, state, and federal agencies, many of whom had no connection
(the Federal Trade Commission? The FBI?), and repeatedly and
constantly ignoring the best objective advise from admins in the net
abuse groups to LET IT GO.

You are inconsistent. One should complain to law enforcement, you say,
but if one does, then one is somehow acting foolishly? Again, whatever
this astrologer has or has not done, HE is not responsible for the
actions of others. And what this thread discusses is: what are these
actions? Why do our enemies choose to do these things? What can we
learn about them? Etc.

Post by CFA
You may have never seen 'obsessive' in such three-dimensional glory.
It was unbelievable.

Still, I do not hear you say that those who continue, even in this
person's absence, to attack him, are obsessive. It's as if that did
not matter. Is that what you think? If so, why?

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
To me, that's just philosophical weakness. Who cares what 'they' think
about astrology? I know what my experiences have been, and I doubt
they'll convince me those experiences were meaningless.

have published my work on why and how astrology works anyhow. ;-)

Go Kjell! ;-)

It's a hefty challenge, but I am working on it. I'll return to that
matter in other posts, in due time. :-)

/K

[Todd Carnes]

But the topic I want to bring forward in this discussion is
our*enemies*, not the ways in which we ourselves make things
difficult.

I understand what you are trying to say, but *enemies*? That's a rather
strong word for it. I don't think of them as enemies.

They're just (very immature) people who don't know what the heck they're
talking about. :)

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes

But the topic I want to bring forward in this discussion is
our*enemies*, not the ways in which we ourselves make things
difficult.

I understand what you are trying to say, but *enemies*? That's a rather
strong word for it. I don't think of them as enemies.
They're just (very immature) people who don't know what the heck they're
talking about. :)

I think the word enemies is very apt for the kind of people that
harass with defamation and with lies. They are enemies, not only to
us, but to all civil and humane values as well. They may be immature,
but that is still no excuse.

May their actions return upon them, I'd say.

/Kjell

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
May their actions return upon them, I'd say.

They will get their's in the end. Everything eventually comes back to
you threefold.

Todd

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by Kjell Pettersson
May their actions return upon them, I'd say.

They will get their's in the end. Everything eventually comes back to
you threefold.

That is why I phrased my anathema very carefully. Now I am only asking
for what is going to happen anyway. Better safe than sorry! :-)

/K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
The rate at which hostilities escalated pretty much eclipsed
reasonable discussion between sides. It started before the skeptics
showed up, though.

I never said astrologers all love one another. But the topic I want to
bring forward in this discussion is our *enemies*, not the ways in
which we ourselves make things difficult. Your focus is upon how WE
could improve -- which we certainly can -- but my focus is upon what
people targets us, how they do it and why they do it.

Sounds like you're taking all this far more seriously than it deserves
to be taken. Some people just aren't going to like or trust me, and
there's little I can do about that. Oh well. That doesn't mean I have
to tolerate abuse. But I don't experience abuse, except that which I
engage.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
He invited it. He was pounding on other proponents before the skeptics
arrived in the group.

Again; there will always be internal disagreements. Some milder, some
deeply held convictions clashing. We are not (unlike skeptics?) all
similar.

That doesn't necessarily lead to the level of disagreement I saw and
experienced.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
I don't expect the skeptics to change their behavior. That doesn't
mean it's okay; it just means, to me, that anyone who expects to run
them out of the group or get them to change is asking for constant,
unwinnable war

They are launching this war on us on thousands of websites, no matter
whether or not we respond to them. It may not be "smart" to defend
oneself against defamatory attacks, but it certainly is not WRONG.

I just can't feature taking the time to dignify ignorance on that
level with any attempt at rational response.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And I know for certain this person was active also in a.a., though the
Charter prohibits me from discussing the details (we would veer far to
OT, and have to discuss moderation practices also).

Sorry to hear you had any problems.

Now you are missing the point. My point here is that no matter how
"innocent" you are, they will attack. If there is not a suitable
target to start with, it will be created. It therefore does not matter
whether or not someone has a history that could be said to "justify"
attacks, because they, or someone else, would have been attacked
anyway.

You're assuming the person being attacked is powerless to make any
difference in the experience. I was, uh, teased for a while, until I
got the game.

However, it's not, fundamentally, even about astrology.

This one proponent is at heart a bully. The following of critics he
created was in large part a response to his bullying tactics- both
towards his critics and other astrologers and proponents.

On the other hand, there are times you do have a target on you, like
now. I still wouldn't make the personal- it's a function of your role.
And that comes with the territory- you are an authority figure here,
so you're probably going to get some complaints.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not think the current state of a.a. can be blamed in internal
dissension among astrologer to any significant degree.

But that's where it started. It's in the Google record, if you care to
pursue it. I showed up about a year later, when it was already
nuclear.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Most of them - not really. They were very clear they quite enjoyed
poking sticks at certain members of the group, and they would very
much miss the entertainment value it provided if the people left.

How do you know?

Because they said so repeatedly.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Even now, when the person we have been talking about
is barely present in that newsgroup, they STILL attack. They fake his
presence with phony posts, and attack him. I don't think they do so
now because they have changed from way back then, I think this shows
what they were always like.

It's just their way of saying they miss him :-) (which confirms my
point just above).

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Even while it was still active, every significant skeptic in the group
made attempts to drop the fight and was rebuffed every time.

I feel I have to stress that I am NOT, emphatically not, saying that
this is how every skeptic is. I know there have been decent ones
around, and know some myself. I am NOT trying to demonize them, but I
DO think that demonizing us is an ingrained part of their subculture.
Examples from Dawkins or Russell could be presented.

I suppose, but I don't take it personally. These are things people
couldn't or wouldn't face, before they knew you or I. So, in a way, it
all predates our presence. We represent something uncomfortable for
them. But that's part of exploring new territory, if for no other
reason than it can cause big change in one's view of life, and
astrologers and those who practice it threaten the status quo.

Your analysis is sound, but it does not absolve those in this
subculture that perpetuate this war on us with clearly unethical
methods. We are not guilty as charged because we are "exploring new
territory" (or old territory). Others do without meeting with
defamation. We do not deserve to be treated like this. And to point
that out is an act of self-affirmation, not an act of denial.

Self-affirm all you feel you need to do. Expecting the skeptics to
acknowledge it is pointless, and it actually invites the dissension to
continue.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think that war is already upon us. My point of view is not that we
attack the attackers, but that we care for those wounded.

Okay, though I more interested in seeing if they can identify why they
got hit by shrapnel so that they don't do it again. Skeptics aren't
going to change (or go away) - what has to change, to eliminate how
the interaction goes, is proponents' mind set about the relationship.

I disagree. Saying skeptics can't or wont change is believing too
little of them. They are humans too, and I am certain that appealing
to humane values and codes of conduct is not a meaningless venture.

On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

One of the most vocal appears to be a decent guy, actually supportive
of some of the other proponents. His flash point is what he considers
bullying, and he'll go to great lengths to oppose it. It's not about
the astrology.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
No, it wasn't the skeptics' attacks. It was tension between the
astrologers in the group that got expanded into the conversation with
the skeptics.

They USED that tension. "Divide et impera." That still does not make
defamation OK.

Ignore it, make friends with them, or if it's actionable, call law
enforcement. Anything else is just endless infantry battles.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Criticism is okay. Defamation and lies are not.

The best choices are still: ignore the criticism, unless it rises to
actionable level.

I would say that the current level of defamation of the astrologer we
have mentioned is WAY beyond that level (and have been for long). Only
now everyone is so desensitized to the whole thing they do not see it
for what it is any more.

You missed the (frivolous) one court case that was actually started by
someone who agrees with him re: abuse, etc. You've missed his repeated
threats of lawsuits, to both skeptics and proponents.

You've missed the thousands of complaints (appeals, really) to
authority that have resulted in 99.9% nothing. I won't say 100%,
because a few times skeptics have stepped over the line and lost an
account or two, but it's nothing compared to the 20+ accounts our
'friend' has lost in his over-the-top reactions.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
No, but he, and we, play in that sand box. There are always going to
be nut jobs at the fringes of such a controversial topic.

And WE are not responsible for THEIR actions.

No, though we tangle ourselves up in their worlds if we try to stop
them from doing what they do. Ignore them, or report them to the
appropriate authorities if they step over a line or lines.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And the poster
in a.a. whom we have discussing, he may have been doing things that
enabled the attackers. Nevertheless, HE cannot be faulted for THEIR
actions. The victim is never the murderer, no matter if they gave them
a lift or did something else that opened the door for the murderer.

He invited, enabled, and encouraged his treatment. He insisted on
getting revenge, attempting to rid the news group of those who
disagreed, and even reporting other proponents for abuse to their
providers for mildly disagreeing with him. It was WAY over the top,
and I don't see him for a second as a victim. Of COURSE he attracted
the best and brightest trolls in the whole of usenet.

Now you are faulting him for reacting too strongly and too early. But
would you say that the current level of defamation is not over the
top, should in principle be possible to use law enforcement to punish
the guilty?

If law enforcement was EVER to step in and enforce some law or
another, they would have done so around 1997 or 98.

The aggrieved have given the authorities ample opportunity to punish
the offenders. Ain't happenin'.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
You are completely missing that the reason this has gone over the top
is that the attackers consciously chose someone that would give them
the most "bang for the buck". To target a person because of that is
doubly sinister rather than something that would absolve the
attacker.

The skeptics are just heat-seeking missiles, so, yes, you're right
about 'bang for the buck'. But I called it entertainment value
(actually, they did), and that's all it really is.

The reason this has gone completely over the top is that both sides
took it there. I didn't try to fight for him, because he attacked me,
too, and because there's really no way I could stop either side from
doing what they do.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
He now has a usenet-wide reputation for his abuse of the abuse
process, sending hundreds or thousands of complaints to providers and
local, state, and federal agencies, many of whom had no connection
(the Federal Trade Commission? The FBI?), and repeatedly and
constantly ignoring the best objective advise from admins in the net
abuse groups to LET IT GO.

You are inconsistent. One should complain to law enforcement, you say,
but if one does, then one is somehow acting foolishly? Again, whatever
this astrologer has or has not done, HE is not responsible for the
actions of others. And what this thread discusses is: what are these
actions? Why do our enemies choose to do these things? What can we
learn about them? Etc.

Inconsistent? He's complained since 1997 and gotten approximately zero
response (other than 'no, we're not acting on your complaint'). It
would seem frivolous now, and an abuse of the abuse process, to
continue complaining about the same people doing the same things 14
years later. That's where we are. Perhaps he's lost a little juice
since 97, but he's still the same ol' guy at heart.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
You may have never seen 'obsessive' in such three-dimensional glory.
It was unbelievable.

Still, I do not hear you say that those who continue, even in this
person's absence, to attack him, are obsessive. It's as if that did
not matter. Is that what you think? If so, why?

Um, in a way it doesn't. It really doesn't matter what it's called or
how much they are like that. It doesn't matter what kind of troll it
is- it's still just a troll- and obsession is a favorite tactic.

However, I can get along with them and still disagree with what they
do.

I'd be horrified to be involved in either side of the argument.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
To me, that's just philosophical weakness. Who cares what 'they' think
about astrology? I know what my experiences have been, and I doubt
they'll convince me those experiences were meaningless.

have published my work on why and how astrology works anyhow. ;-)

Go Kjell! ;-)

It's a hefty challenge, but I am working on it. I'll return to that
matter in other posts, in due time. :-)

:-)

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA
Sounds like you're taking all this far more seriously than it deserves
to be taken.

I just want to be as clear as possible. But, yes, I do take seriously
that we are targets of people using very dishonest methods.

Post by CFA
Some people just aren't going to like or trust me, and
there's little I can do about that. Oh well. That doesn't mean I have
to tolerate abuse. But I don't experience abuse, except that which I
engage.

Are you saying everyone abused is abused because of they are engaging
it? That is the very point I am opposing.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
They are launching this war on us on thousands of websites, no matter
whether or not we respond to them. It may not be "smart" to defend
oneself against defamatory attacks, but it certainly is not WRONG.

I just can't feature taking the time to dignify ignorance on that
level with any attempt at rational response.

But if someone else does, it still is not wrong. Selfdefense is part
of our survival instinct.

Post by CFA
However, it's not, fundamentally, even about astrology.

Not always. But often enough.

Post by CFA
This one proponent is at heart a bully. The following of critics he
created was in large part a response to his bullying tactics- both
towards his critics and other astrologers and proponents.

I do not think we need to discuss individual personalities. We should
be able to keep this conversation without *characterizing* individual
persons.

Post by CFA
On the other hand, there are times you do have a target on you, like
now. I still wouldn't make the personal- it's a function of your role.
And that comes with the territory- you are an authority figure here,
so you're probably going to get some complaints.

Sending a virus is not a complaint. It is an aggression; an act of
war. I know things like that is part of what you can expect and do not
think I can change that through this or any other post. My main
interest with this discussion and making my view heard is that we
raise our consciousness and see these things clearly. I think we,
astrologers in general, are too meek and too prone to self-abasement.
The answer is not in retaliation, but without acknowledging how we are
treated we are condoning it.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not think the current state of a.a. can be blamed in internal
dissension among astrologer to any significant degree.

But that's where it started. It's in the Google record, if you care to
pursue it. I showed up about a year later, when it was already
nuclear.

I think some part of the difference in our respective perceptions is
due to us having different angles on the whole thing.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Most of them - not really. They were very clear they quite enjoyed
poking sticks at certain members of the group, and they would very
much miss the entertainment value it provided if the people left.

How do you know?

Because they said so repeatedly.

I would not trust anything coming from someone who has defamation as a
hobby.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Even now, when the person we have been talking about
is barely present in that newsgroup, they STILL attack. They fake his
presence with phony posts, and attack him. I don't think they do so
now because they have changed from way back then, I think this shows
what they were always like.

It's just their way of saying they miss him :-) (which confirms my
point just above).

I'd say the opposite. It negates your point, proving instead that they
do what they do because it has an intrinsic value to them, NOT because
they are provoked to do it.

Post by CFA
Self-affirm all you feel you need to do. Expecting the skeptics to
acknowledge it is pointless, and it actually invites the dissension to
continue.

It is not about acknowledgement. What I am saying is that attacking
someone through defaming him, or through lying about him, is wrong.
Defending yourself against it may not be strategically "smart", but
doing so is NOT wrong.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I disagree. Saying skeptics can't or wont change is believing too
little of them. They are humans too, and I am certain that appealing
to humane values and codes of conduct is not a meaningless venture.

On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

That is not what I ask for. I do not even ask for anything, actually.
I am saying "They are in the wrong". I find there is a value in seeing
them for what they are and in seeing their actions in the light of
what these actions are about. To me the whole "the attacker is
innocent" is a bit too much New Age -- if you excuse my saying so --
in the way that makes New Age draw (fair) criticism. I am very much
"New Age" myself -- hey, I believe in astrology! --, but not at all in
this respect.

Post by CFA
No, though we tangle ourselves up in their worlds if we try to stop
them from doing what they do. Ignore them, or report them to the
appropriate authorities if they step over a line or lines.

I am not arguing that we try to change them. When I say, for instance,
that if you encounter someone saying "the supermoon is an idea of a
conspiracy theorist", you correct him, you are not therefore trying to
change him. You are just trying to make truth known. Whether or not
they can accept the truth you say, THAT you cannot do anything about.

Besides that, I think it is a value for us, as a group (meaning not
aamod but astrologers in general) to acknowledge the nature of a great
part of our enemies, and that this is a part of their subculture. I
think it is problematic that so many astrologers see it as natural and
OK that skeptics take themselves the preferential right to
interpretation in all possible matters. We live in a world where they
have made their way of thinking the rule in academia and science, even
though they are only a minority. It is a kind of oppression, really.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
You are completely missing that the reason this has gone over the top
is that the attackers consciously chose someone that would give them
the most "bang for the buck". To target a person because of that is
doubly sinister rather than something that would absolve the
attacker.

The skeptics are just heat-seeking missiles, so, yes, you're right
about 'bang for the buck'. But I called it entertainment value
(actually, they did), and that's all it really is.
The reason this has gone completely over the top is that both sides
took it there. I didn't try to fight for him, because he attacked me,
too, and because there's really no way I could stop either side from
doing what they do.

If you expressed this kind of sympathy for his attackers as you do
now, I'd say it is not really surprising he thought you one of them
and included you in his counterattacks, if that was the case.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
He now has a usenet-wide reputation for his abuse of the abuse
process, sending hundreds or thousands of complaints to providers and
local, state, and federal agencies, many of whom had no connection
(the Federal Trade Commission? The FBI?), and repeatedly and
constantly ignoring the best objective advise from admins in the net
abuse groups to LET IT GO.

You are inconsistent. One should complain to law enforcement, you say,
but if one does, then one is somehow acting foolishly? Again, whatever
this astrologer has or has not done, HE is not responsible for the
actions of others. And what this thread discusses is: what are these
actions? Why do our enemies choose to do these things? What can we
learn about them? Etc.

Inconsistent? He's complained since 1997 and gotten approximately zero
response (other than 'no, we're not acting on your complaint'). It
would seem frivolous now, and an abuse of the abuse process, to
continue complaining about the same people doing the same things 14
years later. That's where we are. Perhaps he's lost a little juice
since 97, but he's still the same ol' guy at heart.

We are worlds apart if you do not think that the level of defamation
and attack against this person is WAY beyond what could or should
possibly, ever, be tolerated. No matter what his own role may be or
not.

And perhaps there is not, at least not now, any bridge between our
respective ways of looking at these things, except the good old "agree
to disagree". I will still hope that my appeal that we correct lies
when we meet them has not gone entirely unheard.

/K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Sounds like you're taking all this far more seriously than it deserves
to be taken.

I just want to be as clear as possible. But, yes, I do take seriously
that we are targets of people using very dishonest methods.

They're just bullies, and there are definite things one can do to stop
the bullying.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Some people just aren't going to like or trust me, and
there's little I can do about that. Oh well. That doesn't mean I have
to tolerate abuse. But I don't experience abuse, except that which I
engage.

Are you saying everyone abused is abused because of they are engaging
it? That is the very point I am opposing.

Sometimes it's blatantly obvious a person is inviting it, sometimes
not. I believe the situation we've been discussing is definitely the
former.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
They are launching this war on us on thousands of websites, no matter
whether or not we respond to them. It may not be "smart" to defend
oneself against defamatory attacks, but it certainly is not WRONG.

I just can't feature taking the time to dignify ignorance on that
level with any attempt at rational response.

But if someone else does, it still is not wrong. Selfdefense is part
of our survival instinct.

Sure. If someone is trying to knock the door down, take action. But
this situation ain't that.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
However, it's not, fundamentally, even about astrology.

Not always. But often enough.

I believe it's about bullying, and astrology is sometimes a person's
Achilles heel (at least, their belief in astrology).

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
This one proponent is at heart a bully. The following of critics he
created was in large part a response to his bullying tactics- both
towards his critics and other astrologers and proponents.

I do not think we need to discuss individual personalities. We should
be able to keep this conversation without *characterizing* individual
persons.

But it's such a great case study :-) Okay, I'll play nice.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
On the other hand, there are times you do have a target on you, like
now. I still wouldn't make the personal- it's a function of your role.
And that comes with the territory- you are an authority figure here,
so you're probably going to get some complaints.

Sending a virus is not a complaint. It is an aggression; an act of
war. I know things like that is part of what you can expect and do not
think I can change that through this or any other post. My main
interest with this discussion and making my view heard is that we
raise our consciousness and see these things clearly. I think we,
astrologers in general, are too meek and too prone to self-abasement.
The answer is not in retaliation, but without acknowledging how we are
treated we are condoning it.

Sometimes, okay, and sometimes I think ignoring the temptation to
engage in 'discussion' is the best tactic.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I do not think the current state of a.a. can be blamed in internal
dissension among astrologer to any significant degree.

But that's where it started. It's in the Google record, if you care to
pursue it. I showed up about a year later, when it was already
nuclear.

I think some part of the difference in our respective perceptions is
due to us having different angles on the whole thing.

I saw it mushroom, and I saw why it mushroomed.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Most of them - not really. They were very clear they quite enjoyed
poking sticks at certain members of the group, and they would very
much miss the entertainment value it provided if the people left.

How do you know?

Because they said so repeatedly.

I would not trust anything coming from someone who has defamation as a
hobby.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Even now, when the person we have been talking about
is barely present in that newsgroup, they STILL attack. They fake his
presence with phony posts, and attack him. I don't think they do so
now because they have changed from way back then, I think this shows
what they were always like.

It's just their way of saying they miss him :-) (which confirms my
point just above).

I'd say the opposite. It negates your point, proving instead that they
do what they do because it has an intrinsic value to them, NOT because
they are provoked to do it.

Exactly my point: entertainment value.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Self-affirm all you feel you need to do. Expecting the skeptics to
acknowledge it is pointless, and it actually invites the dissension to
continue.

It is not about acknowledgement. What I am saying is that attacking
someone through defaming him, or through lying about him, is wrong.
Defending yourself against it may not be strategically "smart", but
doing so is NOT wrong.

Not wrong, perhaps, and very often not productive, either. Bullies
want a response. They are at a loss without one.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I disagree. Saying skeptics can't or wont change is believing too
little of them. They are humans too, and I am certain that appealing
to humane values and codes of conduct is not a meaningless venture.

On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

That is not what I ask for. I do not even ask for anything, actually.
I am saying "They are in the wrong".

I don't disagree, but I'm saying that's a subjective perspective. No
ISP or law enforcement agency would step in.

Is it unkind? Sometimes, yes. But even the skeptics had limits. They
wouldn't pursue anyone not capable of defending themselves. I've
watched that a lot over the years. It's called Formosa's Law. You can
read about it, if it matters.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I find there is a value in seeing
them for what they are and in seeing their actions in the light of
what these actions are about. To me the whole "the attacker is
innocent" is a bit too much New Age -- if you excuse my saying so --
in the way that makes New Age draw (fair) criticism. I am very much
"New Age" myself -- hey, I believe in astrology! --, but not at all in
this respect.

I didn't say they were innocent. I didn't say either side was,
actually. I said they both contributed to the complete and utter
meltdown of alt.astrology.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
No, though we tangle ourselves up in their worlds if we try to stop
them from doing what they do. Ignore them, or report them to the
appropriate authorities if they step over a line or lines.

I am not arguing that we try to change them. When I say, for instance,
that if you encounter someone saying "the supermoon is an idea of a
conspiracy theorist", you correct him, you are not therefore trying to
change him. You are just trying to make truth known. Whether or not
they can accept the truth you say, THAT you cannot do anything about.

I'm saying you probably already have a good idea that you're just
wasting your time on this particular person, and that your original
impulse to speak does indeed appear to be about changing someone's
mind. If someone starts with " something something conspiracy theory "
(and really believes it), I'm saying that's a fight waiting for a
partner.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Besides that, I think it is a value for us, as a group (meaning not
aamod but astrologers in general) to acknowledge the nature of a great
part of our enemies, and that this is a part of their subculture. I
think it is problematic that so many astrologers see it as natural and
OK that skeptics take themselves the preferential right to
interpretation in all possible matters. We live in a world where they
have made their way of thinking the rule in academia and science, even
though they are only a minority. It is a kind of oppression, really.

I don't think it's so much as seeing it 'natural and OK' as much as
'consider the source'. One of the better tag lines I've seen: never
argue with a fool: they will drag you down to their level and then
beat you with experience.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
You are completely missing that the reason this has gone over the top
is that the attackers consciously chose someone that would give them
the most "bang for the buck". To target a person because of that is
doubly sinister rather than something that would absolve the
attacker.

The skeptics are just heat-seeking missiles, so, yes, you're right
about 'bang for the buck'. But I called it entertainment value
(actually, they did), and that's all it really is.
The reason this has gone completely over the top is that both sides
took it there. I didn't try to fight for him, because he attacked me,
too, and because there's really no way I could stop either side from
doing what they do.

If you expressed this kind of sympathy for his attackers as you do
now, I'd say it is not really surprising he thought you one of them
and included you in his counterattacks, if that was the case.

He started on me (you went back to personalities here, so I'm
responding) first, before I became friendly with his enemies.

You really haven't studied the archives if you didn't notice that his
actions split the proponents into two groups- those who saw themselves
as victims of the skeptics, and those who didn't. I'd guess more of
the proponents didn't. aamod was initiated by someone who did.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
Inconsistent? He's complained since 1997 and gotten approximately zero
response (other than 'no, we're not acting on your complaint'). It
would seem frivolous now, and an abuse of the abuse process, to
continue complaining about the same people doing the same things 14
years later. That's where we are. Perhaps he's lost a little juice
since 97, but he's still the same ol' guy at heart.

We are worlds apart if you do not think that the level of defamation
and attack against this person is WAY beyond what could or should
possibly, ever, be tolerated. No matter what his own role may be or
not.

Yes, we have different views. I was there at the time. I saw what each
side did to provoke and continue this fight. Several proponents at the
time ended up spending thousands of dollars protecting themselves from
a completely frivolous lawsuit one of the idiot victim proponents
filed.

The truth is I couldn't disagree with many of the *factual* things
that were pointed out about this one individual. I did and do disagree
with the degree they (both sides) took and still take things.

If you weren't there, it's going to be hard to see why it doesn't tie
up into as neat a package as you would like to present it here.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And perhaps there is not, at least not now, any bridge between our
respective ways of looking at these things, except the good old "agree
to disagree". I will still hope that my appeal that we correct lies
when we meet them has not gone entirely unheard.

'They' don't care and won't hear you. All they see is fear, and that's
what bullies feed on.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Are you saying everyone abused is abused because of they are engaging
it? That is the very point I am opposing.

Sometimes it's blatantly obvious a person is inviting it, sometimes
not. I believe the situation we've been discussing is definitely the
former.

You are using the present tense; "inviting". Yet what you have
described is all long past.

- - -

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

That is not what I ask for. I do not even ask for anything, actually.
I am saying "They are in the wrong".

I don't disagree, but I'm saying that's a subjective perspective. No
ISP or law enforcement agency would step in.

I meant wrong also in the legal sense, not only in a personally
subjective sense. Defamation is wrong. If there is a history behind
it, that STILL does not justify present transgressions.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
If you expressed this kind of sympathy for his attackers as you do
now, I'd say it is not really surprising he thought you one of them
and included you in his counterattacks, if that was the case.

He started on me (you went back to personalities here, so I'm
responding) first, before I became friendly with his enemies.

I want to point out that I do not comment on anyone's personality
above. I am trying to picture the mechanics as they might have been.
And your answer is also not, here, a characterization but a
description of events as you saw them unfold. What I mean by not
characterizing others is making statements about their nature. So your
answer here is OK with me.

Post by CFA
You really haven't studied the archives if you didn't notice that his
actions split the proponents into two groups- those who saw themselves
as victims of the skeptics, and those who didn't. I'd guess more of
the proponents didn't. aamod was initiated by someone who did.

Well, I haven't studied the archives that deep. But though I have now
stepped into discussing the past, that was not what I intended with
this discussion. As I see it, present defamation cannot be justified
by the past. You seem to me to want to hold the person we have mostly
discussed responsible for what is long gone. I say that not knowing
the past that thoroughly I cannot make any judgement about it but to
say that of course everyone is responsible for HIS actions. He is,
however, not responsible for the actions of others, and especially not
if these actions occur a decade and a half later. When I speak of our
enemies using defamation I am referring to defamation taking place
now, 2011, not to what happened in another century or decade.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
We are worlds apart if you do not think that the level of defamation
and attack against this person is WAY beyond what could or should
possibly, ever, be tolerated. No matter what his own role may be or
not.

Yes, we have different views. I was there at the time.

You are again, or still, here discussing the past. I am discussing
what can be seen happening in a.a. right now (insofar it concerns this
person, then there is all the other stuff I am referring to that has
got nothing at all to do with him). What is happening right now in
a.a. is not OK. Saying so is no lie, nor is it making someone a victim
who is not. There are statements that should be punishable under law
made there, and likely also are punishable.

- - -

Post by CFA
The truth is I couldn't disagree with many of the *factual* things
that were pointed out about this one individual. I did and do disagree
with the degree they (both sides) took and still take things.

You are still in the past. What can be seen in a.a. if you go over
there right now is certainly not of a "factual" nature. And the
methods they use are despicable.

Post by CFA
If you weren't there, it's going to be hard to see why it doesn't tie
up into as neat a package as you would like to present it here.

I am not trying to present the past in any way. I am trying to avoid
getting lost in discussions about the past (even though I failed in
that and went with you quite far), because past actions is no
justification for present misdeeds. Two wrongs never make a right.

My main intention with this discussion had nothing to do with the
person we have mentioned AS SUCH. It was an example, chosen because it
was readily available and known. Ditto for the supermoon. Other
examples could have been chosen. With these examples, which could have
been other examples, I wanted to show what we are up against, and make
a kind of "call to arms", by which I mean not everlasting fruitless
discussions with skeptics and trolls but that our enemies provide us
with an opportunity to unite.

It is often said that the creation of an external enemy is a great way
to create cohesion within a group. But if that external enemy actually
exists, cohesion becomes an actual need and not a propaganda ploy. I
am pointing towards an actual enemy and hoping that when seeing the
enemy, some will come to realize that our differences are nothing
compared to that.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And perhaps there is not, at least not now, any bridge between our
respective ways of looking at these things, except the good old "agree
to disagree". I will still hope that my appeal that we correct lies
when we meet them has not gone entirely unheard.

'They' don't care and won't hear you. All they see is fear, and that's
what bullies feed on.

But my call has got nothing to do with THEM. It is for OUR sake I make
it.

/K

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Are you saying everyone abused is abused because of they are engaging
it? That is the very point I am opposing.

Sometimes it's blatantly obvious a person is inviting it, sometimes
not. I believe the situation we've been discussing is definitely the
former.

You are using the present tense; "inviting". Yet what you have
described is all long past.

No, it continues to this day, just at a much slower pace. People pop
in every few weeks or once a month now, vs every day at its peak.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
- - -

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

That is not what I ask for. I do not even ask for anything, actually.
I am saying "They are in the wrong".

I don't disagree, but I'm saying that's a subjective perspective. No
ISP or law enforcement agency would step in.

I meant wrong also in the legal sense, not only in a personally
subjective sense. Defamation is wrong. If there is a history behind
it, that STILL does not justify present transgressions.

Then where are the successful legal actions to stop said abuse? I
asked this earlier: 14 years and no court cases? Really? 14 years?

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
You really haven't studied the archives if you didn't notice that his
actions split the proponents into two groups- those who saw themselves
as victims of the skeptics, and those who didn't. I'd guess more of
the proponents didn't. aamod was initiated by someone who did.

Well, I haven't studied the archives that deep. But though I have now
stepped into discussing the past, that was not what I intended with
this discussion. As I see it, present defamation cannot be justified
by the past. You seem to me to want to hold the person we have mostly
discussed responsible for what is long gone. I say that not knowing
the past that thoroughly I cannot make any judgement about it but to
say that of course everyone is responsible for HIS actions. He is,
however, not responsible for the actions of others, and especially not
if these actions occur a decade and a half later. When I speak of our
enemies using defamation I am referring to defamation taking place
now, 2011, not to what happened in another century or decade.

It's not possible to maintain the integrity of your example by
ignoring the past. Stripping it of its past allows one to portray
certain people as victims when that is not really the case.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
We are worlds apart if you do not think that the level of defamation
and attack against this person is WAY beyond what could or should
possibly, ever, be tolerated. No matter what his own role may be or
not.

Yes, we have different views. I was there at the time.

You are again, or still, here discussing the past. I am discussing
what can be seen happening in a.a. right now (insofar it concerns this
person, then there is all the other stuff I am referring to that has
got nothing at all to do with him). What is happening right now in
a.a. is not OK.

I agree.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Saying so is no lie, nor is it making someone a victim
who is not. There are statements that should be punishable under law
made there, and likely also are punishable.

Every known legal authority in the western hemisphere (I seriously
doubt I'm exaggerating much at all) has been apprised of the things
happening in aa, and have been since 1997. Where are the legal
repercussions? It's not from lack of trying or threatening.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
- - -

Post by CFA
The truth is I couldn't disagree with many of the *factual* things
that were pointed out about this one individual. I did and do disagree
with the degree they (both sides) took and still take things.

You are still in the past. What can be seen in a.a. if you go over
there right now is certainly not of a "factual" nature. And the
methods they use are despicable.

Right there is where you might be too involved in this. It will only
suck you under because you won't be able to stop it, and the harder
you try, the more energy it will drain from the rest of your life.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
If you weren't there, it's going to be hard to see why it doesn't tie
up into as neat a package as you would like to present it here.

I am not trying to present the past in any way. I am trying to avoid
getting lost in discussions about the past (even though I failed in
that and went with you quite far), because past actions is no
justification for present misdeeds. Two wrongs never make a right.
My main intention with this discussion had nothing to do with the
person we have mentioned AS SUCH. It was an example, chosen because it
was readily available and known.

Absolutely, so let's use it to examine the phenomenon- it's one of the
best examples in the whole of usenet precisely because it's been so
polarizing and so stuck-right-there for so long.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Ditto for the supermoon. Other
examples could have been chosen. With these examples, which could have
been other examples, I wanted to show what we are up against, and make
a kind of "call to arms", by which I mean not everlasting fruitless
discussions with skeptics and trolls but that our enemies provide us
with an opportunity to unite.

Unite? Not when the crowd as a whole can't agree on how to approach
the situation. I seriously doubt it would be any easier with any crowd
at any other time: it split the group (of proponents).

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It is often said that the creation of an external enemy is a great way
to create cohesion within a group. But if that external enemy actually
exists, cohesion becomes an actual need and not a propaganda ploy. I
am pointing towards an actual enemy and hoping that when seeing the
enemy, some will come to realize that our differences are nothing
compared to that.

I think you've set up a straw man. Skeptics are a symptom, not the
cause.

The cause is dealing with the various issues the study of astrology
provokes: appropriate use of power, 'betraying' family and scientific
traditions/guilt, figuring out self-employment, etc. Skeptics just
sniff an opening. But they're no real threat. They only have the power
we give them. You're looking at one happening in the other group at
this very moment.

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And perhaps there is not, at least not now, any bridge between our
respective ways of looking at these things, except the good old "agree
to disagree". I will still hope that my appeal that we correct lies
when we meet them has not gone entirely unheard.

'They' don't care and won't hear you. All they see is fear, and that's
what bullies feed on.

But my call has got nothing to do with THEM. It is for OUR sake I make
it.

If it's got nothing to do with the skeptics (which isn't really true:
it's wholly based on that perceived threat), why don't we stop
including them in the conversation at all? It doesn't require an
external threat to unite a group.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Are you saying everyone abused is abused because of they are engaging
it? That is the very point I am opposing.

Sometimes it's blatantly obvious a person is inviting it, sometimes
not. I believe the situation we've been discussing is definitely the
former.

You are using the present tense; "inviting". Yet what you have
described is all long past.

No, it continues to this day, just at a much slower pace. People pop
in every few weeks or once a month now, vs every day at its peak.

I do not see our ”example” doing that. Popping in, yes, but ”inviting
it”, no. He may say he did not make a post someone faked in his name
or some such, but that is all I have seen for quite some time now.

Do you think that is also too much? If you point out you did not make
a post, you become guilty of that post having been made? I hardly
think you do, but it *almost* seems like you are saying that.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
On a friendship basis, I agree. But in the context of basing your
acceptance of them on their acceptance of astrology? You're just
asking for a fight.

That is not what I ask for. I do not even ask for anything, actually.
I am saying "They are in the wrong".

I don't disagree, but I'm saying that's a subjective perspective. No
ISP or law enforcement agency would step in.

I meant wrong also in the legal sense, not only in a personally
subjective sense. Defamation is wrong. If there is a history behind
it, that STILL does not justify present transgressions.

Then where are the successful legal actions to stop said abuse? I
asked this earlier: 14 years and no court cases? Really? 14 years?

I have been part of a forum here in Sweden (a non-astrological one)
where there was hardly any moderation. There were a group of racists
there, posting addresses to work and home of people they considered
offended their racial sensibilities. As such people are wont to do.
(It is a common strategy among racists, with the goal of getting the
”wrong” people to shut up.)

If a person tried to take this to police, all the answer they got were
”Sorry, we can't deal with this, there are too many offended people on
the Internet and we don't have the resources to investigate quarrels.”

I do not think it works, or has worked in the last decades, very much
differently in the US, or with Usenet. I'd be flabbergasted to hear
that there would have been a significant number of court cases
touching upon Usenet defamation and direct lying, at all.

Or are you proposing a more general principle that would say that not
only is the person we have mentioned himself to blame, the same goes
for each and everyone attacked on the Usenet (at least if they have
been trying to defend themselves)?

If you do, then I think you are wrong.

Post by CFA
It's not possible to maintain the integrity of your example by
ignoring the past. Stripping it of its past allows one to portray
certain people as victims when that is not really the case.

Well, I have tried to make the point that this example can be
disregarded. There was another one that is familiar to many here
present. Then I have lots from an astrological forum (back home in
Sweden, again) where I helped to clean up improper posts (moderation
post factum), and where similar things could be seen. I didn't use any
of these, though, since they are not commonly known in the same way as
the example I chose to use. THAT was my main reason for choosing the
particular examples I chose.

BTW, moderating, one also gets to see a lot that the group members
don't get to see.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
We are worlds apart if you do not think that the level of defamation
and attack against this person is WAY beyond what could or should
possibly, ever, be tolerated. No matter what his own role may be or
not.

Yes, we have different views. I was there at the time.

Others were there at the time that do not share your views. Obviously
”being there” is not an ultimate criterion for ending up with your
point of view.

Post by CFA
Every known legal authority in the western hemisphere (I seriously
doubt I'm exaggerating much at all) has been apprised of the things
happening in aa, and have been since 1997. Where are the legal
repercussions? It's not from lack of trying or threatening.

You are very obviously exaggerating, and there is probably a reason
why you do so. You seem to have invested quite a lot in your opinion,
or I don't see why you would exaggerate the way you do.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
You are still in the past. What can be seen in a.a. if you go over
there right now is certainly not of a "factual" nature. And the
methods they use are despicable.

Right there is where you might be too involved in this. It will only
suck you under because you won't be able to stop it, and the harder
you try, the more energy it will drain from the rest of your life.

You are still, or again, misunderstanding me. I am not saying anyone,
least of all myself, should devote their energies to trying to
convince skeptics, tell them they are bad because they use dishonest
methods or anything.

To acknowledge the nature of the their actions does not mean you have
to start fighting WITH them.

With an analogy:

Leprosy is not the infections per se. Leprosy starts as a ”numbness”,
making the person not receive signals from their end nervcells. This
leads to them not even noticing bumping in to things and hurting
themselves, which leads to infections.

And on it goes. The problem that starts the process is not the
infections, they come later on. The problem is that they are unaware
of what happens to their physical bodies.

In a similar vein I think it is necessary, not only for us, but for
everyone, to acknowledge, realistically and objectively, what threats
to one's integrity that occurs and what injuries that happen. If the
warning signals are cut off, the body will start to decay.

If we, as a group (astrologers in general that is, not aamodders),
shield ourselves and play along in our own little world, disregarding
the abuse and the external world, we will loose touch with reality,
and our work will suffer. Because the abuse tells us something, and we
need to put that something into our calculations. Not acknowledging
the state of affairs means goofing off into some kind of la-la-land.

Naturally, by this I do not mean that we should think those who
dislike our profession may be right (though even that can be a
sobering thought once in a while). On the contrary, I think it can
give birth to a fighting spirit. ”I'll prove them wrong!”, for
instance.

Also it will help people see how empty is so much of the argumentation
they put forth. Rhetorics and ad hominem, not to mention they do not
even know a thing about the topic they attack.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
My main intention with this discussion had nothing to do with the
person we have mentioned AS SUCH. It was an example, chosen because it
was readily available and known.

Absolutely, so let's use it to examine the phenomenon- it's one of the
best examples in the whole of usenet precisely because it's been so
polarizing and so stuck-right-there for so long.

Again: I am not discussing Usenet. I am not even discussing this
group. I am making more general statements about elements in the
skeptics' subculture. But you do not want to let go of the example.
It's like you say: ”stuck-right-there”, but being stuck applies to you
as well.

Post by CFA
Unite? Not when the crowd as a whole can't agree on how to approach
the situation. I seriously doubt it would be any easier with any crowd
at any other time: it split the group (of proponents).

The example is not the general idea. Try to see what I was using the
example FOR. You are stuck in your conviction I chose the wrong
example. I say, OK, then let go of that example. Ignore it.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson
It is often said that the creation of an external enemy is a great way
to create cohesion within a group. But if that external enemy actually
exists, cohesion becomes an actual need and not a propaganda ploy. I
am pointing towards an actual enemy and hoping that when seeing the
enemy, some will come to realize that our differences are nothing
compared to that.

I think you've set up a straw man. Skeptics are a symptom, not the
cause.

I certainly do not think the existence of skeptics is caused by the
existence of astrologers. Or else I do not understand what you say
here.

Skeptics are not only a symptom, anyhow. They are a driving force,
promoting a culture that is directly hostile to anything in the
slightest tinted with astrology.

Post by CFA
The cause is dealing with the various issues the study of astrology
provokes: appropriate use of power, 'betraying' family and scientific
traditions/guilt, figuring out self-employment, etc. Skeptics just
sniff an opening. But they're no real threat. They only have the power
we give them. You're looking at one happening in the other group at
this very moment.

In one sense, I agree. They have only the power—over us—that we give
them. But they have power in the real world too. They have positions
in academia and science. Their hostile culture thus has consequences
that are very real, for us as well.

You know, they even use a ”magician” who once tried to fake as
astrologer as some kind of reference. That can be done only because
they share a common hatred, not because magicians or fakes have any
certain scientific credentials.

Post by CFA

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by CFA
'They' don't care and won't hear you. All they see is fear, and that's
what bullies feed on.

But my call has got nothing to do with THEM. It is for OUR sake I make
it.

it's wholly based on that perceived threat), why don't we stop
including them in the conversation at all? It doesn't require an
external threat to unite a group.

Let me clarify: It has got nothing to do with us engaging in battles
with them. That does not mean that they cease to exist in the
equation, though. And please note that when I use ”they” here I am
doing so in a more generalized sense than I think you do. You seem to
the whole time be referring to the events in a.a., who's to blame and
who is not, etc. I am referring to the entire cultural mindset. And I
do not abhor skepticism in the proper sense, it is a valid and
worthwhile part of many kinds of intellectual work.

But when it becomes like a religion in itself, complete with ”demons”
to attack and exorcise and everything, then it is not skepticism
proper and more. Then it has become an ideology rather than a method.

And the ideology that has risen, it is just flawed. When did you ever
see a skeptic apply skepticism to their own ideology, for instance?

So, you think one of my examples was a bad one. But what do you think
about the general thought I am reaching for?

[CFA]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Let me clarify: It has got nothing to do with us engaging in battles
with them. That does not mean that they cease to exist in the
equation, though. And please note that when I use ”they” here I am
doing so in a more generalized sense than I think you do. You seem to
the whole time be referring to the events in a.a., who's to blame and
who is not, etc.

That situation is a cautionary tale about excessive zeal defending
sacred cows.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
I am referring to the entire cultural mindset. And I
do not abhor skepticism in the proper sense, it is a valid and
worthwhile part of many kinds of intellectual work.
But when it becomes like a religion in itself, complete with ”demons”
to attack and exorcise and everything, then it is not skepticism
proper and more. Then it has become an ideology rather than a method.

And the people who support it have simultaneously become unreachable
by any rational discourse. Of course, they claim the same for
astrology defenders.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
And the ideology that has risen, it is just flawed. When did you ever
see a skeptic apply skepticism to their own ideology, for instance?

Enough to know it happens.

Post by Kjell Pettersson
So, you think one of my examples was a bad one. But what do you think
about the general thought I am reaching for?

I think it's noble, and I think it's basically fruitless. You'll
probably only encourage the radicals to increase their efforts.

Ken

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by CFA

[W]hat do you think
about the general thought I am reaching for?

I think it's noble, and I think it's basically fruitless.

Noble is good, and fruitless I can work with. Thank you for sharing
your thoughts on this!

/Kjell