Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 Ed: I am sorry to say but your ignorance has no parangon here. Nobody excells you in ignoring about astrology and many other disciplines. I happen to be probably the only one of the list members that have read all Gauquelin's books. I even have the first edition of his first book, the one he wrote on 1955! If you had read them, you would have learned that he did not made use of the signs,and that he created a particular domification for his studies,and from that he saw and concluded that there was a FEEBLE connection between the angularity of certain planets and the success in some professions. In no case the sign placement was validated, only the importance of angularity was stretched but not in a statistically significant way. And finally, let me ratify to all you that a lot of tests had been done by using the tropical signs and different domifications and none have shown positive results. Not even the psychological attributes given theoretically prove to work and least of all the possibilty to advance an event with the use of the tropical zodiac. It is incredible that you being a journalist, you don't take the minimum time to investigate before you dare to make an statement. I am not a journalist but before I dare to emit an opinion I make intensive and extensive inquiries. Alfonso Osorio , " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > , " alfonsoosorio " > <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > > I think it should be clear to all of us that astrology is not a > > science. All the studies done have been made on the tropical > zodiac, > > and they haven't shown any positive result. > > > This is a lie. > > Have you not heard of Gaquelin???? > > He conducted the biggest and best statistical surveys to date, and he > showed that cardinal points were of high value. Others have done > much research as well; you really should do some internet searches. > > > > > > This is an indirect way > > of confirming that the tropical zodiac has no validity and should > be > > discarded. > > Again, you are making conclusions that have no logical basis. The > sidereal zodiac is no more or less speculative than the tropical. > > > > > > > > Those of us who have opted for the sidereal zodiac at least have > the > > illusion and what is more important, the possibility, that this > > zodiac can show a more statistically significant connection. > > You have never shown any such thing as long as I have known you, but, > illusions are more fun than reality any day! > > Best, > > Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 , " alfonsoosorio " <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > Ed: > > I am sorry to say but your ignorance has no parangon here. Nobody > excells you in ignoring about astrology and many other disciplines. > > I happen to be probably the only one of the list members that have > read all Gauquelin's books. I even have the first edition of his > first book, the one he wrote on 1955! > > If you had read them, you would have learned that he did not made use > of the signs,and that he created a particular domification for his > studies,and from that he saw and concluded that there was a FEEBLE > connection between the angularity of certain planets and the success > in some professions. Wow, because his study showed that the most reliable parts of the chart are the angles. You should re-read his books, and learn something about why cardinal points are of great importance. > > In no case the sign placement was validated, only the importance of > angularity was stretched but not in a statistically significant way. Yeah, that is somewhat correct assessment. > > And finally, let me ratify to all you that a lot of tests had been > done by using the tropical signs and different domifications and none > have shown positive results. I could care less about domifications in any zodiac, and for the reasons you specify. Not even the psychological attributes > given theoretically prove to work and least of all the possibilty to > advance an event with the use of the tropical zodiac. > > It is incredible that you being a journalist, you don't take the > minimum time to investigate before you dare to make an statement. I > am not a journalist but before I dare to emit an opinion I make > intensive and extensive inquiries. Oh, please, get off of your pathetic high horse and stop grandstanding. You are just upset because I have proven you to be wrong time and time again, and you can't get over it. Go do your Vedic and have a life of bliss, i could really care less what you think of me or anyone else. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 > , " alfonsoosorio " ><alfonsoosorio> wrote: >> I happen to be probably the only one of the list members that have >> read all Gauquelin's books. Not quite, Alfonso. I knew the Gauquelins personally and have not only all the books, but some generously donated French data given to me privately by Francoise. She was so afraid that it might somehow escape my hands and become public. Ed wrote: >Wow, because his study showed that the most reliable parts of the >chart are the angles. You should re-read his books, and learn >something about why cardinal points are of great importance. Not cardinal points, unless the term is wrong here. The chart divided into 36 sectors based on the Asc and MC. (Roughly) the cadent areas of the Placidus chart. But the correlation is weak and sometimes non-existent except for Mars. The Gauquelins rounded their birth times to the half hour, sometimes to the quarter hour. Anyhow, the findings are of little use to astrologers since there are so many other ways planets can be prominent. Nevertheless, the Gauquelins isolated planetary traits, which are extremely important. Some agree with tradition, some don't. I refer to these planet traits all the time. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 Therese, How did you ever endure Francoise's Sun-Saturn opposition of 08'? In angles yet! I had to flee. R. Therese Hamilton wrote: > Not quite, Alfonso. I knew the Gauquelins personally and have not only all > the books, but some generously donated French data given to me privately by > Francoise. She was so afraid that it might somehow escape my hands and > become public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.