Aquarius7000, apart from people whom I routinely tune out on the grounds that rational conversation with them is impossible, I actually read what people write. It is entirely possible that what people write is open to interpretations that they didn't intend. In which case a reasonable response to an off-target interpretation is to return to the initial comment and to explain it more clearly.
I could certainly go back through this thread and excavate verbatim your personal attacks on me and on modern astrology, but that would be far too tedious.
Let's just say that anyone who dishes out hard comments has to be prepared to take them in return. If you find some aspect of modern astrology to be rubbish, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but then it is only fair play to anticipate modern astrologers responding in kind.
I've been traveling for 10 days, just now home. Most of this time I had little or no Internet so I've tried to catch up with this thread quickly, when and how I could. If I didn't respond to everyone's liking, I will just have to live with it.
BTW, I have tried to answer a number of your specific questions about modern astrology. I don't know if my answers caught your attention.
As I have indicated multiple times, modern astrology is my stock-in-trade, but I have tried to educate myself about the outlines of traditional astrology. If you see how I read horary charts, you'll get some idea of my progress. So no, I do not find traditional astrology in any way disturbing-- just the assault on modern astrology.
Just tonight, in fact, I said that I thought Benjamin Dyke's more conciliatory approach to modern astrologers in his book, Traditional Astrology for Today, suggests that our main differences are ones of emphasis. Wouldn't you agree?
Waybread, you're making too much sense.
