"Aries sun in its median expression tends to sneer at the metaphysical"

Yes, I'm afraid I've been baiting you too. My actual birth-date is June 23rd 1973 4pm. Even though I'm not an Aries I'll continue sneering if you don't mind.

You predict my intelligence based on my birth data. That's a statement which can be tested. You could perform the same prediction for- say- 100 strangers and see if your predictions match up with their measured IQ. I'd say you're well on your way to grabbing the one-million dollar James Randi prize. All you have to do is demonstrate that ability and show it's nothing more than chance guesses.

I know precisely nothing about astrology excepting for the ludicrous comments that I occasionally come across from people at parties etc.

Also- sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a violent person. Bit of an extrapolation if you ask me to assume that anyone who disagrees with the astrology fans must be beating someone up in their spare time.

For my part- I still think it's reasonable to assume that people who strongly believe in astrology aren't too smart. Harry Potter readers however are all outstanding geniuses.

Thanks for the detailed deconstruction of my personality, though you might want to update your comments to reflect the fact that I made up the date of birth I gave you. I gave my real d.o.b below in my last post to WW. (Sorry, I couldn't resist- and you make it too easy for me!)

OK- so you've unanimously decided that you've won the argument based on the fact that I gave you a false DOB upon which you merrily wrote a long post describing how the stars reveal my close-minded personality.

It's hard to argue with that logic- mainly because your logic is non-existant.

So Henry Miller liked astrology and Henry Miller is apparently not an idiot- therefore astrology is for smart people? Duh... you're making my head hurt- is there any way out? You've trapped me like a wounded animal. There is no way out.

Yes, it's possible that some astrologers are not idiots- they're just incapable of separating fact from fantasy.

You don't have to argue with me. Just go ahead and apply for the James Randi one million dollar prize money for proof of the paranormal. If you can demonstrate to the James Randi Educational Foundation that astrology works I will promise to take you a little more seriously. (Even if I don't- you'll still have a million dollars- so that should make you feel a little better.)

Is Salon now going to seek out the fortune-tellers' side of every story? We've had the astrological consequences of Pluto and now prophecy in Lebanon. Aaaarrrrgggghhh!!

Fortune telling doesn't work- never has and never will! Of course people turn to fortune tellers in times of crises- and fortune tellers are always willing to make an extra buck out of people's fear and paranoia. They're scam artists- no more and no less.

Why do some Salon readers feel offended at young Earth creationists and then gush about astrology and fortune telling as age-old wisdom?

Let's think for a second about the Lebanese who make literally life or death choices based on this rubbish.

Don't worry- in the interests of balance, Salon's editors in their finite wisdom will eventually get around to publishing an article saying that astrology and fortune-telling is bunk. They can then justify to themselves that they print exciting challenging and provocative pieces covering both sides of the issue.

But what if they applied the same criteria to their political articles? Would the readers be so tolerant if Salon published patently false stories about politicians on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then balanced those articles out with the truth on Tuesdays Thursdays and Saturdays? Or would the readers expect every article to be accurate and truthful?

Of course, SIngh-Bartlett's story is true in the sense that he's gullibly reporting what he's been told- but we all know that Salon readers would demand a much higher level of skepticism from a political article- if a politician was being interviewed about extraordinary claims.

OK- so sometimes debates over the starred letter system gets childish. We all consider ourselves to be little Shakespeares and thus we all feel our letters deserve the editors' choice star.

That said.... why is the only star on this board awarded to a letter that positively glows about how great astrology and fortune telling is. The letter writer also claims that anyone who disagrees with his/her opinions can be compared to creationist fundamentalists.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this is also the only letter praising and not ridiculing the Salon article.

Some of the posters seem to take for granted that religion improves the conditions for women. Can they provide empirical evidence to show that this is the case?

As far as I know there is actually a very weak correlation and even an inverse correlation of religious belief with abortion, teen pregnancy, STD's etc. It also seems to be generally the case that censorship of artistic expression goes hand in hand with repression of women.

Prove me wrong.