>
>"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.
>