Planets in exaltation and fall - Starman

[Guest guest]

, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

 

EK> he doesn't seem like a person who

> >attracts hostility and anger and enemies, which I have observed

with

> >every person I know who has Mars setting. Just look at our

current

> >President! His inauguration chart has Mars setting, and this

idiot

> >has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst

> >terrorist attack in history, and start new wars.

 

 

DR> *******Pres. Bush caused the bombings on Sept. 11th, now? The

plotters were

> already in the country before he became President!

> I think it had a little more to do with the " Monica missiles "

fired by his

> predecessor, with Palestine, and with many other things long before

that.

 

DR,

 

Where above did I say that Bush the person caused the Sept 11th

attack? I instead was using the chart for the inauguration (which

would have been the same regardless of who won the election), which

has Mars on the DSC, to show what Mars on the DSC promulgates, which

is more than just Sept 11, but also the fact that the USA has drawn

much more ire from abroad since 2001; this is a reversal of the

goodwill that Clinton had fostered with the UN and the international

community in general. Please read things more thoroughly in the

future, DR.

 

- Ed K

[Guest guest]

> a person who attracts hostility and anger and enemies, which I have

observed

with every person I know who has Mars setting. Just look at our

current President! His inauguration chart has Mars setting, and this

idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst

>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars.

 

 

DR> *******Pres. Bush caused the bombings on Sept. 11th, now? The

plotters were already in the country before he became President!

> I think it had a little more to do with the " Monica missiles " fired by his

 

>predecessor, with Palestine, and with many other things long before

that.

 

DR,

Where above did I say that Bush the person caused the Sept 11th

attack? I instead was using the chart for the inauguration (which

would have been the same regardless of who won the election), which

has Mars on the DSC, to show what Mars on the DSC promulgates, which

is more than just Sept 11, but also the fact that the USA has drawn

much more ire from abroad since 2001; this is a reversal of the

goodwill that Clinton had fostered with the UN and the international

community in general. Please read things more thoroughly in the

future, DR.

- Ed K

 

*******First, I read carefully indeed---a planet being at such-and-such place

at an inauguration in Jan. 2001 can hardly be the cause of something which

was already going on before that time, I said.

Second, I'd say this is just another example of political bias interfering

with understanding events. Clinton bombed the big medicine factory in the

Sudan where Bin laden was a hero, on the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying,

to distract news coverage: the story that it was a plant manufacturing poison

gas was proved false. Right afterwards, Bin laden ordered attacks on

Americans, leading to the Cole bombing and the WTC/Pentagon. There was no

'good will' garnered there, I'd say!

It's important to understand world events to trace things to their causes,

which in this case were all long before the 2000 election and therefore could

not have to do with whoever was President since then 'antagionizing' people,

which in the case of the Islamic world was actually done by his predecessor.

I know of no actions by Pres. Bush anyone could point to as having

" attracted " the bombing, as speculated above. It was, as said, already in

preparation before his election.

 

Dr. Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

> > a person who attracts hostility and anger and enemies, which I

have

> observed

> with every person I know who has Mars setting. Just look at our

> current President! His inauguration chart has Mars setting, and

this

> idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst

> >>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars.

>

>

> DR> *******Pres. Bush caused the bombings on Sept. 11th, now? The

> plotters were already in the country before he became President!

> > I think it had a little more to do with the " Monica missiles "

fired by his

>

> >predecessor, with Palestine, and with many other things long

before

> that.

>

> DR,

> Where above did I say that Bush the person caused the Sept 11th

> attack? I instead was using the chart for the inauguration (which

> would have been the same regardless of who won the election), which

> has Mars on the DSC, to show what Mars on the DSC promulgates,

which

> is more than just Sept 11, but also the fact that the USA has drawn

> much more ire from abroad since 2001; this is a reversal of the

> goodwill that Clinton had fostered with the UN and the

international

> community in general. Please read things more thoroughly in the

> future, DR.

> - Ed K

>

> *******First, I read carefully indeed---a planet being at such-and-

such place

> at an inauguration in Jan. 2001 can hardly be the cause of

something which

> was already going on before that time, I said.

 

Oh? Why is this so? What rule, astrological or otherwise, gives you

the ability to say this as some universal fact? I would think that

even though the planning of such an event was in the works

(allegedly) before 1-20-02, the fact that the fruits of such work was

realized afterwards seems to suggest that the Mars energy helped

precipitate what was an otherwise unlikely event.

 

 

 

> Second, I'd say this is just another example of political bias

interfering

> with understanding events. Clinton bombed the big medicine factory

in the

> Sudan where Bin laden was a hero, on the day Monica Lewinsky was

testifying,

> to distract news coverage: the story that it was a plant

manufacturing poison

> gas was proved false. Right afterwards, Bin laden ordered attacks

on

> Americans, leading to the Cole bombing and the WTC/Pentagon.

 

So, the bombings of the US embassies in Africa were not attacks on

the USA? I think not! How about the attacks at Khovar Towers in

1996?

 

 

 

> There was no 'good will' garnered there, I'd say!

> It's important to understand world events to trace things to

their causes,

> which in this case were all long before the 2000 election and

therefore could

> not have to do with whoever was President since

then 'antagionizing' people,

> which in the case of the Islamic world was actually done by his

predecessor.

 

This may be the case, but what about the rest of the non-Musilm world

that is royally pissed at the USA now, mainly because of the Bush

arrogance? Do you realize that most people around the world now feel

that the USA is the biggest threat to peace?

 

 

 

 

> I know of no actions by Pres. Bush anyone could point to as having

> " attracted " the bombing, as speculated above. It was, as said,

already in

> preparation before his election.

 

For the last time, it is the chart of the inauguration, not the

actions of the President (which are also suspect), that we might be

able to point to. Imagine you are an Iraqi, and the son of the

butcher that slaughtered a retreating army in 1991 was given power

against the will of the people? To them, Bush Jr. is an insult in

the highest degree. To me, he is an insult to rationality and

intelligence, but his father didn't slaughter my relatives.

 

In mundane astrology, a chart such as an inauguration chart

encompases a lot more than just the President, but rather a whole

political machine and apparatus, including the Vice President, the

Cabinet, advisors, appointees, diplomats, et al.

 

Best,

Ed K

[Guest guest]

You two really need to switch to decaf or get a prescription filled for some

type of depressant. How about a massage? I'm not trying to pick a fight just

trying to help.

*****/////Damon

 

DRStarman2001 wrote:> a person who attracts hostility and anger and

enemies, which I have

observed

with every person I know who has Mars setting. Just look at our

current President! His inauguration chart has Mars setting, and this

idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst

>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars.

 

 

DR> *******Pres. Bush caused the bombings on Sept. 11th, now? The

plotters were already in the country before he became President!

> I think it had a little more to do with the " Monica missiles " fired by his

 

>predecessor, with Palestine, and with many other things long before

that.

 

DR,

Where above did I say that Bush the person caused the Sept 11th

attack? I instead was using the chart for the inauguration (which

would have been the same regardless of who won the election), which

has Mars on the DSC, to show what Mars on the DSC promulgates, which

is more than just Sept 11, but also the fact that the USA has drawn

much more ire from abroad since 2001; this is a reversal of the

goodwill that Clinton had fostered with the UN and the international

community in general. Please read things more thoroughly in the

future, DR.

- Ed K

 

*******First, I read carefully indeed---a planet being at such-and-such place

at an inauguration in Jan. 2001 can hardly be the cause of something which

was already going on before that time, I said.

Second, I'd say this is just another example of political bias interfering

with understanding events. Clinton bombed the big medicine factory in the

Sudan where Bin laden was a hero, on the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying,

to distract news coverage: the story that it was a plant manufacturing poison

gas was proved false. Right afterwards, Bin laden ordered attacks on

Americans, leading to the Cole bombing and the WTC/Pentagon. There was no

'good will' garnered there, I'd say!

It's important to understand world events to trace things to their causes,

which in this case were all long before the 2000 election and therefore could

not have to do with whoever was President since then 'antagionizing' people,

which in the case of the Islamic world was actually done by his predecessor.

I know of no actions by Pres. Bush anyone could point to as having

" attracted " the bombing, as speculated above. It was, as said, already in

preparation before his election.

 

Dr. Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>>> our current President...s inauguration chart has Mars setting, and

this idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst

>>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars.

>

>

>DR> *******Pres. Bush caused the bombings on Sept. 11th, now? The

>plotters were already in the country before he became President!

>> I think it had a little more to do with the " Monica missiles "

fired by his predecessor, with Palestine, and with many other things long

before that.

>

>DR,

>Where above did I say that Bush the person caused the Sept 11th

>attack? I instead was using the chart for the inauguration (which

>would have been the same regardless of who won the election), which

>has Mars on the DSC, to show what Mars on the DSC promulgates,

which is more than just Sept 11, but also the fact that the USA has drawn

>much more ire from abroad since 2001; this is a reversal of the

>goodwill that Clinton had fostered with the UN and the

international community in general. Please read things more thoroughly in

the

>future, DR.

>- Ed K

>

>*******First, I read carefully indeed---a planet being at such-and-such

place

>at an inauguration in Jan. 2001 can hardly be the cause of something which

>was already going on before that time, I said.

 

>>Oh? Why is this so? What rule, astrological or otherwise, gives you

the ability to say this as some universal fact? I would think that

even though the planning of such an event was in the works

(allegedly) before 1-20-02, the fact that the fruits of such work was

realized afterwards seems to suggest that the Mars energy helped

precipitate what was an otherwise unlikely event.

 

*******You said he was inaugurated with Mars at such-and-such place and then

afterwards " attracted " violence and the Sept. 11th attack by his actions as

President, and that he " started wars " as President. Read your own words.

 

>

> > I'd say this is just another example of political bias

> interfering with understanding events. Clinton bombed the big medicine

> factory

> in the Sudan where Bin laden was a hero, on the day Monica Lewinsky was

> testifying, to distract news coverage: the story that it was a plant

> manufacturing poison gas was proved false. Right afterwards, Bin laden

> ordered attacks on Americans, leading to the Cole bombing and the

> WTC/Pentagon.

>

> >>>So, the bombings of the US embassies in Africa were not attacks on

> the USA? I think not! How about the attacks at Khovar Towers in

> 1996?

 

******Well, you just made my point for me. If this wave of fundamentalism had

people bombing us years before Bush became President, how is he to blame for

it while Clinton only generated some 'good will'? Not very objective.

 

>

> >There was no 'good will' garnered there, I'd say!

> > It's important to understand world events to trace things to

> their causes, which in this case were all long before the 2000 election and

>

> therefore could not have to do with whoever was President since

> then 'antagionizing' people, which in the case of the Islamic world was

> actually done by his predecessor.

 

 

> This may be the case, but what about the rest of the non-Musilm world

> that is royally pissed at the USA now, mainly because of the Bush

> arrogance? Do you realize that most people around the world now feel

> that the USA is the biggest threat to peace?

 

*****Do you realize that most people probably believe the moon landings were

faked? Are we required to pay attention to the opinions of people who think

you can cure AIDS by sleeping with a virgin, or are there some standards?

If the Europeans think that they know what's best and all we need to do

is follow their lead, perhaps they'd like to explain why we had to rescue

them from two continent-wide wars in just the past century while we've had

none.

And the adherents of a Dark Ages religion bomb NYC and kill 3,000 innocent

people but the US is to blame for hunting them down?

 

>

> >I know of no actions by Pres. Bush anyone could point to as having

> > " attracted " the bombing, as speculated

 

>>> Imagine you are an Iraqi, and the son of the > butcher that slaughtered a

> retreating army in 1991 was given power against the will of the people?

 

 

*******Two mythic falsehoods in one sentence! Amazing.

Is there a rule in the Mideast (or anywhere else, for that matter) that

once you invade another country and then get kicked out, you're entitled to

some kind of special treatment as you're retreating? What mercy would that

army have shown to another, hmmmm? About what they showed to the Kuwaitis.

And please explain what an Iraqi would know about anyone being elected by

the 'will of the people'--- while I point out that every reporter team doing

recounts in Florida showed Bush WON.

 

> >>To me, he is an insult to rationality and intelligence...

 

*****Well, so much for being able to be objective about world events then.

It's not very likely you'll be able to, clearly, and if you don't think so...

well, De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

But what has this got to do with sidereal astrology, anyway?

 

Dr. Starman

 

http://www.DrStarman.net

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

 

 

> *******You said he was inaugurated with Mars at such-and-such place

and then

> afterwards " attracted " violence and the Sept. 11th attack by his

actions as

> President, and that he " started wars " as President. Read your own

words.

 

Starman,

 

Stop putting text in my mouth. I said that Bush has fostered ill

will in the world apart from 9-11. Please go back and re-read my

original statements.

 

 

 

 

> > > I'd say this is just another example of political bias

> > interfering with understanding events. Clinton bombed the big

medicine

> > factory

> > in the Sudan where Bin laden was a hero, on the day Monica

Lewinsky was

> > testifying, to distract news coverage: the story that it was a

plant

> > manufacturing poison gas was proved false. Right afterwards, Bin

laden

> > ordered attacks on Americans, leading to the Cole bombing and the

> > WTC/Pentagon.

> >

> > >>>So, the bombings of the US embassies in Africa were not

attacks on

> > the USA? I think not! How about the attacks at Khovar Towers in

> > 1996?

>

> ******Well, you just made my point for me. If this wave of

fundamentalism had

> people bombing us years before Bush became President, how is he to

blame for

> it while Clinton only generated some 'good will'? Not very

objective.

 

 

Again, I was making the point that Bush has exacerbated the problem

to a much higher degree. Throughout the history of any country one

can find enemies. This is natural. The trend with Bush & Co. is

that of unprecedented levels of distrust toward America; this is

surely Mars on the DSC at work!

 

 

 

 

> > >There was no 'good will' garnered there, I'd say!

> > > It's important to understand world events to trace things to

> > their causes, which in this case were all long before the 2000

election and

> >

> > therefore could not have to do with whoever was President since

> > then 'antagionizing' people, which in the case of the Islamic

world was

> > actually done by his predecessor.

>

>

> > This may be the case, but what about the rest of the non-Musilm

world

> > that is royally pissed at the USA now, mainly because of the Bush

> > arrogance? Do you realize that most people around the world now

feel

> > that the USA is the biggest threat to peace?

>

> *****Do you realize that most people probably believe the moon

landings were

> faked?

 

No. This is silly. " Most people... " ? Where do you get these

howlers?

 

 

 

> Are we required to pay attention to the opinions of people who

think

> you can cure AIDS by sleeping with a virgin, or are there some

standards?

> If the Europeans think that they know what's best and all we

need to do

> is follow their lead, perhaps they'd like to explain why we had to

rescue

> them from two continent-wide wars in just the past century while

we've had

> none.

 

 

Germany and Japan did not declare WAR on the USA first????? Where

have you learned your history?? The Raelians?

 

 

 

 

> And the adherents of a Dark Ages religion bomb NYC and kill

3,000 innocent

> people but the US is to blame for hunting them down?

 

The ill-will started well before 9-11. Bush's unilateral withdrawal

from the ABM treaty was a bigee, among other items.

 

 

 

 

 

>

> >

> > >I know of no actions by Pres. Bush anyone could point to as

having

> > > " attracted " the bombing, as speculated

>

> >>> Imagine you are an Iraqi, and the son of the > butcher that

slaughtered a

> > retreating army in 1991 was given power against the will of the

people?

>

>

> *******Two mythic falsehoods in one sentence! Amazing.

> Is there a rule in the Mideast (or anywhere else, for that

matter) that

> once you invade another country and then get kicked out, you're

entitled to

> some kind of special treatment as you're retreating? What mercy

would that

> army have shown to another, hmmmm? About what they showed to the

Kuwaitis.

 

The Kuwaitis were whipsawing and stealing Iraqi oil in violation of

international agreements. That was ok, though, i guess?

 

 

 

> And please explain what an Iraqi would know about anyone being

elected by

> the 'will of the people'--- while I point out that every reporter

team doing

> recounts in Florida showed Bush WON.

 

 

Erm, cite one! Not to mention that there was an active campaign in

Florida to remove blacks from the voter rolls (to the tune of about

50,000 votes, mostly Democrat) that was linked directly to Bush,

Harris, and some others. But, I guess that ignoring the facts for

you is how you can justify believing these silly things you do.

 

 

 

 

>

> > >>To me, he is an insult to rationality and intelligence...

>

> *****Well, so much for being able to be objective about world

events then.

> It's not very likely you'll be able to, clearly, and if you don't

think so...

> well, De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

Tacky comments such as this are a waste of time.

 

Please re-read my original post, and you will see where you went

wrong in your assessment of it.

 

 

 

> But what has this got to do with sidereal astrology, anyway?

 

You tell me, as you are the one who replied to my post in a most non-

sidereal way!

 

I would also like an answer to the first question I posed to you in

my last post.

 

Best,

Ed K

[Guest guest]

To the good Doctor,

 

I sometimes wondering if I am debating with an astrologer or with the

FOX News channel. All you have done is to malign basically

everything I have written. Case in point:

 

 

 

, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:

 

> >>>> evidence that Bush & Co. stifled the CIA and FBI in

> the months before the attacks, thus allowing the events to occur...

>

> *******Two investigations have found no such 'evidence' of any

kind.

 

This is simply false. Have you been in a cave for the last year and

a half? Not only did they stifle beforehand, but Bush and his

cronies have done everything to cover up the event since, including

the recent embarrassment of hiring Kissinger to investigate the

government. Negligence is sometimes criminal, my friend.

 

 

 

> So, your theory is that the US caused the NYC and Pentagon

bombings to

> start a war?

 

No. My theory is of mismanagement and the placing of political aims

over that of security, and I agree that blame goes to the folks who

inhabited the White House before 9-11-01.

 

 

 

 

> Well, I'm sorry, but I'd say that's without a shred of proof. I

> put it in the same class with people talking about secret

gov't 'chem-trails'

> and crashed UFOs.

 

Ahh, then the good folks at the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly

are now UFO wackos?? While you are correct that there is little in

the mainstream press, we do have this fine reporting, which is worthy

of a Pulitzer:

 

http://www.rense.com/general24/adv.htm

 

 

 

> ******* ...nor has he started any wars, since the Muslims started

it.

> >>> " The Muslims " started it?? How overly simplistic ...

>

> ******It IS very simple. Who attacked whom? Or I suppose now you're

going to

> justify the slaughter of 3,000 innocent office workers, and tell us

how they

> deserved it because of such-and-such that the US once did or

supposedly did.

> In rape cases, that's called 'blaming the victim.' I don't think it

can be

> justified.

 

Making such silly and reckless accusations against me here is beneath

someone of your alleged status. I have never ever made such

justifications of this atrocity, and I would like an apology from

you, if you are man enough to do so, that is.

 

The entire realm of " Muslims " did not attack the USA; rather, a

handful of zealots that masquerade as " Muslims " did the deed. In the

same vein, all " Christians " don't bomb abortion clinics, and

all " Palestinians " don't do suicide/homicide bombings.

 

 

 

 

> ******* If the Europeans think that they know what's best and all

we

> > > need to do is follow their lead, perhaps they'd like to explain

> why we had to rescue them from two continent-wide wars in just

the past

> century while we've had none.

> > > >>>Germany and Japan did not declare WAR on the USA

first?????

> Where have you learned your history?? The Raelians?

> > ******* The Europeans who now claim such superior knowledge of

> preventing wars started two world wars on their own European

continent, one

> in 1914 and one in 1939.

 

Oh, so the USAnians never started any wars on this continent????

This thinking is at best fuzzy and at worst dangerous.

 

 

 

> > Both were going on for years before there was any US involvement.

 

Well, direct and overt military involvement yes, but financial and

quasi-military involvement?? You bet we were involved!

 

 

 

> > If you wish to know what happened " first " in the case of the

Second

> World

> > War, it was Germany's invasion of Poland in Sept. 1939, over two

> years before the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941

 

Thanks for the update!

 

 

 

> that got us involved in saving the Europeans from themselves

> for the second time in the twentieth century.

 

Well, saving them from the Nazis in the Second World War, surely.

Why did you fail to respond to the FACT i presented about Germany

declaring war on the USA first? I guess this is the part of history

that you think it is safe to ignore?

 

 

 

> *****(The gentleman made no further clever response to that,

because there is

> none. This correction in elementary historical knowledge had to be

made to

> one who apparently thinks WWII began in 1941 and in the US---this

for a man

> lecturing us on how he alone knows the truths of all history.)

 

It is obvious that you don't know much history. Please don't blame

me for your shortcomings.

 

 

 

 

 

> > > The ill-will started well before 9-11. Bush's unilateral

> withdrawal from the ABM treaty was a bigee, among other items.

> > ********Do you or anyone else seriously believe the ABM Treaty or

> any other treaties, have the slightest thing to do with Osama bin

Laden and

> why fundamentalist Islam hates the modern West?

 

For the last effing time:

 

Bush has caused ill-will amongst the entire world community, which

includes Muslims, but also everyone else. Can you name one country

or people whose opinion of the USA has improved in the last two years?

 

No, you can't. Not even the UK, or even Canada.

 

 

 

> >>>No, but it has a lot to do with why this Administration has

garnered

> such ill will with most of the West; I never said it was why " Islam

> hates the West, " which is another statement of dubious character.

>

> ******The only " ill-will " connected with the NYC and Pentagon

bombings could

> possibly be in the Islamic world. Connecting the ABM Treaty and

such to Bin

> Laden is an ethnocentric absurdity, I'd say.

 

Yes, it is, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE SUCH A SILLY REMARK.

 

Why is it that you insist on flaming this situation?

 

 

 

 

> As for fundamentalist Islam hating the West being 'dubious', I

could

> post, say, 100 letters from Bin Laden, sermons from Muslim clerics,

etc. Read

> what they say. You could start with Khomenini over 20 years ago

calling us

> 'little Satans'.

>

>

> > > >>>The Kuwaitis were ...stealing Iraqi oil in violation of

international

> agreements...

> > ******Even if that was true----- which is debatable---- is it

your

> position that that justifies Hussein invading the country and

trying to

> annex it to his own? By what " international agreement " was THAT ok?

> >>>Well, you have been drowned so deeply in propaganda that you

have lost

> sight of much factual history. The Bush (41) dimplomatic solution

to the

> Iraq/Kuwait oil tensions was to let the Iraqi's take

> unilateral action -- I'm surprised you don't recall April

Glaspie....

>

> *****The gentleman then goes on to justify Hussein's seizure of

Kuwait----on

> grounds far more flimsy than Israel's seizure of the West Bank (now

called

> 'Palestine')--- but I'd be willing to bet he's totally against

that.

> Peculiarly selective 'ethics'. And no international laws allowing

Hussein's

> actions, of course, were produced---- since there are none.

 

Re-read the chapter again. I'm sure you were fully in favor of

Iraq's aggression against Iran in the 80's, though, as you are

obviously an apologist for the Republican Party and all they do and

stand for.

 

 

 

 

> >>>> 25 July: Saddam Hussein was personally told by the US

ambassador to

> Iraq, April Glaspie, in a now-famous remark, that " We have no

opinion on the

> Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. "

But she

> then went on to tell the Iraqi leader that she was concerned about

his

> massive troop

> deployment on the Kuwaiti border in the context of his government's

having

> branded Kuwait's actions as " parallel to military aggression " ...

<<<<

>

> *****THAT''S supposed to NOT be a warning, but instead a 'green

light'? Her

> statements have been trotted out as an attempt to blame the US for

Hussein's

> actions since 1990, and with no more success. He clearly was warned

against

> his troop build-up.

 

Well, on this I sort of agree, but at least we seem to agree that our

message to Saddam was muddy at best, and conciliatory at worst.

 

 

 

> > > >>> there was an active campaign in Florida to remove blacks

from the

> voter rolls (to the tune of about 50,000 votes, mostly Democrat)

that was

> linked directly to Bush, Harris, and some others.

> > > ******Um, there's zero proof for this bizarre assertion.

Nothing of the

> kind has ever been reported.

>

> *******No further respone to this either---because there is none.

Katherine

> Harris just won an election there in which all the possible dirt

was thrown

> at her by her opponents, and this imaginary charge had no basis and

was not

> believed: if there'd been any evidence, her opponents would have

found it and

> put it up.

 

Well, again, you are misinformed, probably by FOX News. Please see

this site:

 

www.prospect.org/webfeatures/ 2000/12/kuttner-r-12-11.html

 

and this site:

 

www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2001-06-13.htm

 

and this site:

 

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/integrity/

 

 

The rest of your post, which is nothing but a screed of ad-hominems

against me, is so ludicrous in both tone and content that I fear you

have little character or temprament. This:

 

 

> ***** The humorous thing is I'm a professor of

> history & social sciences as

> well as an astrologer, and many people here may know.

 

(I guess here is where you want me to feel as though I have egg on my

face or something. It's not happening.)

 

I don't really care if you are a " professor " or not. Judging from

your posts, I would have never guessed you were a " professor. " Where

do you lecture?

 

 

 

 

> I know quite a lot of

> history---I also know a bit about being a human being,

> and an astrologer.

 

Why you need to declare these things shows that you have serious

doubts about your own arguments and skills. It doesn't fool me in

the least, sir, but most of what you have written makes me question

how you could have become a DR in the first place. Ad Hominems are

strictly forbidden in the serious academic realms, but you engage

freely.

 

Let me quote Recorde on the uselessness of claiming authority:

 

" Be not abused by their authority, but evermore attend to their

reasons, and examine them well, ever regarding more what is said, and

how it is proved, than who sayeth it: for authority often times

deceiveth many men. " [Castle of Knowledge, 1556]

 

 

 

 

> And I would never try to understand all world events

> based on mere prejudices,

> like fellows mouthing off at a bar.

> The truth is always far more complex than that.

 

Is this why you make such prejudicial statements as " the Muslims did

it " ???????

 

If you would like to reply, I will give you the last word in the

matter. I am really not interested in engaging with someone who

maligns others in lieu of proper debate, especially someone who

claims the high pedigree as you do. It's depressing.

 

- Ed K