"Bassos" wrote in message
news:48b538e3$0$186$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> ok, i danced to this silly tune long enough.
>
> Here it is spelled out for you :
>
> Your list of references had nothing whatsoever to do with anything
> relating to an oath.
I never said anything about them being related to an oath and they were not
intended to. They addressed your claim about your ongoing (actually only
intending to be ongoing at some future time if you can ever discipline
yourself enough to do anything as orghanized as that) comparisons of
astrological charts to personality measures.
Here's what you wrote:
>> Well, as you may or may not know (attention ftw)
>> I am atm (well in the coming years) comparing birth dates (all set at
>> noon, cos no birth time ffs) with some personality test scores.
>>
>> As things do, it occured to me, that if (big if, i hardly like the
>> prospects) there is some strong correlation found between birtchart and
>> personality; what should be done ?
And here is my reply:
> Have you done a literature search? A number of people have done this
> experiment before.
>
> Bastedo, R.W. (1978). An empirical test of popular astrology. Skeptical
> Inquirer, 3(1), 17-38.
> Culver, R.B. & Ianna, P.A. (1984). Astrology: true or false? Buffalo:
> Prometheus.
> Gauquelin, M. (1982). Zodiac and personality: an empirical study.
> Skeptical Inquirer, 6(3), 57-65.
> Hentschel, U. & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of birth and personality:
> another instance of noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology,
> 125(5), 577-585.
> McGervey, J.D. (1977). A statistical test of sun-sign astrology. The
> Zetetic, 1(2), 49-54.
> McGrew, J.H. & McFall, R.M. (1990). A scientific inquiry into the validity
> of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
> Startup, M. (1984). Personality and planetary positions at birth: an
> attempted replication with ordinary people. Correlation, 4(2), 4-13.
> Tyson, G.A. (1984). An emperical test of the astrological theory of
> personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(2), 247-250.
> Van Rooij, J.J.F. (1993). Jungian typology and astrology: an empirical
> test. Correlation, 12(1), 28-32.
Your blabber about an oath came later and was not addressed by the citations
above. Yet you seem to want to pretend it was, just like you want to
pretend that the research will conclude what it clearly doesn't conclude at
all.
> I actually already mentioned this before.
> ( Oh, you want the quote, sure, here it is :
> "But you did not write anything about my suggested oath for astrologers,
> if
> it turns out that it actually works, what this thread is supposed to be
> about." )
And you are wrong about this, too.
Here's what you wrote:
>> Oath of Harpocrates : I will do no Harm.
And here's my reply:
> Do your homework. That's "Hippocrates", not "Harpocrates". Harpocrates
> is the hellenized name of the youthful Egyptian god Horus, whose name in
> ancient Egyptian was har-pa-khered, which translates as "Horus the Child".
> Hippocrates was a physician from Cos around 440 bce and nobody thought he
> was a god, although lots of people thought he was a pretty good guy. He
> devised an oath for physicians that included a pledge that he would do no
> harm.
So I did indeed write something about your suggested oath and you're
pretending otherwise.
> Why do you continue with this not answering anything i asked about, but
> instead talk about something completely different ?
You make a huge mistake in assuming that the results of research are other
than what they really are because you're too ignorant and lazy to do your
homework. Then you make another huge mistake by calling the oath of
Hippocrates the "Oath of Harpocrates".
Correct your flagrant errors, educate yourself. That's my answer to what
you were talking about.
And now you're getting all huffy because I'm not playing your silly
pretend-games with you.
