.
The only way I could possibly alter my perspective and sensitivities, and I'm not even sure if this would work, would be to die and then be born again under a less sensitive sign. Knowing my luck, if I did do that I would be born on March 16th again so I would be the same again all over. Lol:)
Signs are irrelevant. That's another perspective that you subscribe to of your own accord.
The thing you need to realize is that to come onto someone's question for the sole purpose of correcting a simple spelling error, and adding nothing of substance to the conversation, is rude and disrespectful.
"Starving for any rules no matter how cockamamie (correct spelling)"
I can see where you get that idea from, Sharonna, it's the aspects of Saturn in my horoscope. That doesn't mean I am brainwashed though. Still, at least your response has some semblance of trying to understand. However, it would have been better if you hadn't included "Just about every word on earth can be spelled better than it is presented". That kind of talk allows the lunatics to take over the asylum.
"Signs are irrelevant. That's another perspective that you subscribe to of your own accord"
Yes, it is a perspective that I subscribed to of my own accord, but only after I had seen enough samples of its truth to satisfy myself that it was true to begin with. After I discovered how true it was about myself I tried it out on other people just to make sure my own wasn't a fluke, and it turned out to be true about them as well. I wouldn't have subscribed to that perspective if it hadn't turned out to be true.
Besides, you corrected the error yourself after I pointed it out, so that makes me less rude and disrespectful for pointing it out in the first place. Lol:)
Nope, it's still patronizing, and detracts from the substance of the question. Don't do that on my questions any more. I doubt anyone else wants you to derail their questions with spelling corrections either.
As to signs; as I said, you've decided they are meaningful to you. They mean nothing to me except as a historical curiosity, and giving a general idea of when a person was born. There is no mechanism by which star patterns could actually affect a person's personality. Any perceived correlation between personality and star signs could only be a result of confirmation bias, aided by the vague and generalized way horoscopes are written.
I used to get answers and explanations like this when I was on Answerbag. I don't know what it is about the Internet, but half the people who post on it seem to delight in giving the impression that they weren't brought up and educated the good old-fashioned way. Even if they weren't, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt them to pretend they were, and if they do pretend they were they might actually learn something. This isn't about being self-righteous or patronising either, it is more about keeping the status quo the same as it was 50 years ago than anything else.
The mechanism by which star patterns could actually affect a person's personality may be invisible to the human eye, but it is still there for all to see because the results of it are there for all to see. "Confirmation bias" is a made-up concept invented by some idiot with nothing better to do than to try to convert other people to his own high-and-mighty opinions just because he didn't believe in horoscopes himself. There is an old school of people like that on the Internet but they will never succeed in converting me. Never in a billion years even if I literally lived that long. Oh, and horoscopes are not written in a vague or generalised way. I had my own done in 1985, then my sister had hers done the following year. They were both written in specific, individual ways and so would they have been for everyone else who had them done. After a couple more years I learned how to do them for my friends, and they were correct.
I can't remember if you personally posted responses to me on Answerbag. I do remember the screen names of a few of them, but I'm not going to mention them on this site in case they are here under different identities. I have no reason to think you were one of those people, so if you say you weren't then I believe you. However, I don't see what you mean by your last paragraph, especially that last sentence "In fact, they're more a testament to the damage the Internet has done to interpersonal communication". That's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it?
Boy...do I have a surprise for you. Check this out. It will make your brain melt
Yes ...that is real
LOL Saying "'Confirmation bias' is a made-up concept" in defense of horoscopes: now that's just a fine example of both irony and projection!
Oh my sides, I can't even xD
Of course it's a made-up concept. Something can only be true or false, one or the other, black or white. There are no grey areas in it whatsoever, and since my own experiences have proved to me time and time again that it's true, then it's true, and that's that. On the other hand, I have never seen any sort of acceptable evidence that suggests to me that "confirmation bias" is anything more than the made-up concept as I described it. End of story.
I don't get it why people want to go out of their way to make such stupid fools of themselves on the Internet. I thought my own self-respect was low enough, but that is just ridiculous. If I can remember all the things I learned in junior school 45 years ago, I'm sure today's young people can remember the same things they learned in junior school 5-10 years ago. From that, I suspect they do it on purpose just to be trolls.
I don't think I remember you having any jabs at me, so I'll take your word for it. I do remember seeing your name on AB but I don't remember much interaction with you.
How has the Internet damaged interpersonal communication? If anything, I would say it has made it a lot easier for people to check for facts before communicating them back and forth. Theoretically, that should reduce the number of mistakes people make, not increase them. If in doubt, just look it up on the Internet. It really is that simple. As for Facebook, as it happens I have an account there which I use a couple of times a week. I don't see how it has damaged interpersonal communication for me.
If they can, then how come most of them don't go out of their way to prove it like I do?
Maybe not everybody feels like they need to prove how smart they are?
correct / incorrect is often if not always subjective. :)
I wish this was a troll. I've interacted with this person in question on FB and the person who posted the original question that she responded to is a member on Answermug.
I can assure you, she was not trolling :(
Sadly, that lady is in her late 50s or early 60's
Ugh, that level of wrong actually hurts. So much wrongness. :(
You just don't get it, do you, Rpf? I do not do it to prove how smart I am. I do not do it to achieve any kind of self-glorification. I do it because my natural instinct wants everything to be correct and precise. It is also known as being an obsessive perfectionist. Very few, if any, obsessive perfectionists are like that because of some deep-seated need for self-glorification. What makes you think otherwise?
I would expect a lady of that age to be something resembling an old-fashioned schoolmistress. I certainly wouldn't expect such childish, nonsensical trolling from someone even a quarter of her age. It is a very sad and serious matter when someone of that age behaves like that on the Internet.
