Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat

Chat For posts that don't have to do with astrological chart interpretation, but they're still important to you. Gossip, show off, hot topic, spiritual thoughts, Sun sign astrological discussions, chit chat: come in and share!


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 09-03-2008, 03:52 AM
Emsi Emsi is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21
Smile James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Two confronted videos where every one offers his perspective about astrology.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 09-03-2008, 11:17 PM
Matthew The Astrologer's Avatar
Matthew The Astrologer Matthew The Astrologer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 276
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

I'm a great admirer of Derren Brown. Unfortunately he seems to have fallen into the same intellectual trap that Randi did: if you are a magician, what you do is trickery. A scam. Therefore: anything else beyond the strictly clinically observed level is a scam too.

A shame neither of them have read the March 13-19, 2004 issue of New Scientist, with it's cover story about "why the paranormal won't surrende to reason."

And why won't it? Because when one goes over all the most tightly controlled studies of the paranormal... it ain't bull.

New Scientist rightly points out that although it is the job of science to overthrow false worldviews, scientists are as prone to false worldviews as the next human.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 05-08-2011, 11:59 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew The Astrologer View Post
I'm a great admirer of Derren Brown. Unfortunately he seems to have fallen into the same intellectual trap that Randi did: if you are a magician, what you do is trickery. A scam. Therefore: anything else beyond the strictly clinically observed level is a scam too.

A shame neither of them have read the March 13-19, 2004 issue of New Scientist, with it's cover story about "why the paranormal won't surrende to reason."

And why won't it? Because when one goes over all the most tightly controlled studies of the paranormal... it ain't bull.

New Scientist rightly points out that although it is the job of science to overthrow false worldviews, scientists are as prone to false worldviews as the next human.

Believe it or not, I was just thinking about this guy, The Amazing Randi. I had heard of him through some people at work who dismiss anything outside of what they call "hard evidence". Anyways, I was looking to see what James Randi's astrology chart looks like. Couldn't find it. But what I found instead was a YouTube video where he tries to debunk astrology. He gave all the students their horoscopes given their birth data. Students voted on a scale of 1 to 5 how accurate it was, 5 being the most accurate. The majority of students gave it a "1". He asked the students to exchange the horoscopes with each other. At that point, they laughed. Randi said they'd all been given the same horoscope.

What makes me laugh is not that Randi gave the students the same horoscopes, trying to debunk astrology, but that he tricked himself without even realizing it. If you give inaccurate horoscopes to people to begin with (since they'd be inaccurate because not everyone was born at the same place, date, and time), wouldn't you expect everyone to rate those same horoscopes a "1"?

Point being, if you're looking that hard for a scam, chances are, you'll be the first to find it. The universe is kinder than you think... it'll give you exactly what you're looking for.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 05-31-2011, 05:00 AM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

http://www.simplyastrology.com/astro...of-james-randi
A case of Saturn conjunct the South Node in the 5th in Sagitarius?
Looks to me like a very 'dubious' combination.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 06-05-2011, 05:49 PM
SonicYouth SonicYouth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscesascendant View Post
Believe it or not, I was just thinking about this guy, The Amazing Randi. I had heard of him through some people at work who dismiss anything outside of what they call "hard evidence". Anyways, I was looking to see what James Randi's astrology chart looks like. Couldn't find it. But what I found instead was a YouTube video where he tries to debunk astrology. He gave all the students their horoscopes given their birth data. Students voted on a scale of 1 to 5 how accurate it was, 5 being the most accurate. The majority of students gave it a "1". He asked the students to exchange the horoscopes with each other. At that point, they laughed. Randi said they'd all been given the same horoscope.

What makes me laugh is not that Randi gave the students the same horoscopes, trying to debunk astrology, but that he tricked himself without even realizing it. If you give inaccurate horoscopes to people to begin with (since they'd be inaccurate because not everyone was born at the same place, date, and time), wouldn't you expect everyone to rate those same horoscopes a "1"?

Point being, if you're looking that hard for a scam, chances are, you'll be the first to find it. The universe is kinder than you think... it'll give you exactly what you're looking for.
You're not the smartest tool in the box, are you? the video you're referencing is in the first post in this thread and you don't even remember the thing correctly. the majority of students give the horoscope a 4, not a 1, believing it to be highly accurate and yet it's just a collection of generic insights that can apply to anyone.


Fúck this cosmic búllshit, you're all idiots.

Last edited by SonicYouth; 06-05-2011 at 05:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 06-05-2011, 05:59 PM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Irrespective of whether 'piscesascendant' got it wrong,Its been very apparent to me that Randi has made a career out of debunking astrology and other similar arts from a very dodgey standpoint.
Saturn conjunct the south node in the 5th suggests to me that he wants to make a very public display from a poorly informed basis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 06-05-2011, 06:04 PM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Ps: 'sonicyouth' you appear to be coming from a very dubious direction by being incapable of polite argument.
Youll never arrive at any understanding thats worth anything swearing like that.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 06-05-2011, 06:19 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptolomy View Post
Irrespective of whether 'piscesascendant' got it wrong,Its been very apparent to me that Randi has made a career out of debunking astrology and other similar arts from a very dodgey standpoint.
Saturn conjunct the south node in the 5th suggests to me that he wants to make a very public display from a poorly informed basis.
I'm not worried about SonicYouth's response, Ptolomy. Even if I did get it wrong, given the responder's "junior member" status, there's a bit to be learned on their part in terms of forum politeness and etiquette, especially when trying to serve up their so-called "wit".

Thanks just the same.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 06-05-2011, 06:23 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptolomy View Post
Ps: 'sonicyouth' you appear to be coming from a very dubious direction by being incapable of polite argument.
Youll never arrive at any understanding thats worth anything swearing like that.

lol.... I only just noticed SonicYouth's final line that you referenced. I'm curious what this person would be doing on this site, given their opinion of astrology. Can't see him or her lasting too long around here, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 06-05-2011, 08:57 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

I also just watched the Derren Brown video. Derren Brown simply has an axe to grind. Nothing more. Criticism of astrology might be more believable if it came from someone who wasn't a shyster himself.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 06-05-2011, 09:10 PM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Georgia, US
Posts: 1,428
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicYouth
Fúck this cosmic búllshit, you're all idiots.
That's two sentences. You should have used a period, not a comma.
__________________
http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/
Free Astrological Tools, Calculators, and Ephemerides
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 06-05-2011, 09:17 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
That's two sentences. You should have used a period, not a comma.
Oh, let's not encourage the little devil. lol
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 06-05-2011, 09:58 PM
Astrolady3 Astrolady3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicYouth View Post

Fúck this cosmic búllshit, you're all idiots.

How rude.......
__________________
AstroLady3
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:02 PM
SonicYouth SonicYouth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Hi guys. How does it feel knowing your whole life is being determined by big balls of gas?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:10 PM
Astrolady3 Astrolady3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicYouth View Post
Hi guys. How does it feel knowing your whole life is being determined by big balls of gas?

Everyone makes there own destiny....The BIG BALLS OF GAS as you put it are influences in our life, and learning astrology could make a difference in your life, by learning what they do to us we could improve on our SOCIAL SKILLS!! and also learn about ourselves and improve where we think our flaws are....
__________________
AstroLady3
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:15 PM
SonicYouth SonicYouth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrolady3 View Post
Everyone makes there own destiny....The BIG BALLS OF GAS as you put it are influences in our life, and learning astrology could make a difference in your life, by learning what they do to us we could improve on our SOCIAL SKILLS!! and also learn about ourselves and improve where we think our flaws are....
But really they're just big balls of gas floating around the universe. they adhere to the laws of physics and nothing else, as do humans. Stars influence us only so much in that we can see them and they look pretty. And hey, if that has a profound effect on your life then so be it.

You're all deluding yourselves though and peddling this nonsense is an intellectual embarrassment. Science ftw, bitches.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:16 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicYouth View Post
Hi guys. How does it feel knowing your whole life is being determined by big balls of gas?

The gas itself does nothing. You've forgotten the relationships between all the gases, which gas is exalted (good smelling gas?) which gas is in detriment not to mention why many not-too-well-versed-in-astrology people look to it to begin with.... which gas is compatible with other gas. Will the relationship work? (Combustible gas?) or not work? (flat gas). Some people come here to help others (full-serve gas). Others come here for "other reasons" (self-serve gas).

The cost of gas is going up, too!

What's in your wallet?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:22 PM
Astrolady3 Astrolady3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 68
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscesascendant View Post
The gas itself does nothing. You've forgotten the relationships between all the gases, which gas is exalted (good smelling gas?) which gas is in detriment not to mention why many not-too-well-versed-in-astrology people look to it to begin with.... which gas is compatible with other gas. Will the relationship work? (Combustible gas?) or not work? (flat gas). Some people come here to help others (full-serve gas). Others come here for "other reasons" (self-serve gas).

The cost of gas is going up, too!

What's in your wallet?
i must say that is much better than what i was going to say lol x
__________________
AstroLady3
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 06-05-2011, 10:25 PM
piscesascendant piscesascendant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 452
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicYouth View Post
Fúck this cosmic búllshit, you're all idiots.

You're all deluding yourselves though and peddling this nonsense is an intellectual embarrassment. Science ftw, bitches.
Sounds like we've got a real winner here.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 06-06-2011, 03:21 AM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Anyway,enough of sonic youth and his trolling,DONT FEED THE TROLLS.
http://www.astrologer.com/tests/dbtest.htm
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 06-06-2011, 03:31 AM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Interesting 'Barnum Statements' supposedly similar to Derren Browns Astrological
chart analysis in his debunking experiment,also similar to what Randi used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
I have found that 'channel 4' has blocked all the u-tube vids of Browns show on copyright grounds for viewers in the uk,so i dont know exactly what he did,but i get the impression from people that have seen the show that the viewers and audience never got to see what he wrote?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 06-06-2011, 04:16 AM
ptolomy's Avatar
ptolomy ptolomy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Yny's Mon,Anglesey,Cwmru,North Wales,U.K
Posts: 1,008
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Also the most important thing to remember is that Derren Brown is an 'ILLUSIONIST' .Isnt it stupid to believe that an illusionist tells the truth?
The whole point of his 'ACT' is to decieve.It appears to me that its very naive to think that a self confessed deceiver can have an opinion on anything that is truthfull.I guess a lot of viewers of his programme want to be decieved and believe that deception is a scientific technique,I dont think you will find many scientists that believe deception is a valid form of scientific research.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 11-14-2011, 05:18 PM
jazz4 jazz4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

People seem to have the wrong end of the stick with Derren Brown. The fact he is an illusionist does not discredit his views that Astrology is bogus. Same with Randi. They claim nothing on in-sufficient evidence which a huge amount of the population do.

As this is a place to "share views on astrology", I thought I'd share mine. In no way do I intentionally mean to hurt others feelings for their thoughts on this - only provide another side of the argument. It is amusing to see someone on here label Derren Brown a 'shyster.' No one ever looks into what claims he makes of his performances. The guy's an open skeptic, and people get so threatened by the thought of having their bubble broken, (by logic and reason none the less). It worries me how many people tread the shady groves of irrationality when it comes to un-substantiated claims of cosmology. Nothing other than wishful thinking leads someone of lucid rationality to project these myths onto the stars. If you genuinely believe the planets interact with the benalities of our love lives or career oppurtunities - in the words of Carl Sagan - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I think to discredit two people's careers and motives for not entertaining these outlandish claims is depressing behaviour. If all this 'stuff' proved to be true, it would become part of our scientific understanding of the order of universe. But, it doesn't hold up. Someone who tried to use the most popular science magazine to justify these claims should look into this more, they're way off base.

Last edited by jazz4; 11-14-2011 at 05:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 11-14-2011, 11:11 PM
Anachiel Anachiel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,462
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazz4 View Post
It worries me how many people tread the shady groves of irrationality when it comes to un-substantiated claims of cosmology. Nothing other than wishful thinking leads someone of lucid rationality to project these myths onto the stars. If you genuinely believe the planets interact with the benalities of our love lives or career oppurtunities - in the words of Carl Sagan - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I think to discredit two people's careers and motives for not entertaining these outlandish claims is depressing behaviour. If all this 'stuff' proved to be true, it would become part of our scientific understanding of the order of universe. But, it doesn't hold up. Someone who tried to use the most popular science magazine to justify these claims should look into this more, they're way off base.
The same could be applied to more dangerous things...hmmm, religion comes to mind. I mean, talk about extraordinary claims! They can even tell you where you will go after you die. Even astrology doesn't claim that! lol

And, I'm sorry but, who can believe a skeptic? or, trust one? Or, think they are open-minded? They aren't. They're skeptics...helllooo.

Remember Galileo? He was discredited (well, almost killed. ) for having unsubstantiated claims of cosmology. (Giordano Bruno was not so lucky. He was burned for thinking heliocentric thoughts)..Gee, they were waaayyy out there telling people that the Earth went around the Sun! Both were effectively discredited because they could not physically demonstrate that the earth circles the sun. Heliocentrism was finally made science in the 18th century and Sept. 11, 1822 the Church agreed much to all of out relief I'm sure.

Science also used to think that the heart was simply a heating device for the body. William Harvey, a physician, postulated that the heart pumped blood. He was, of course, laughed out of profession because the other "scientists" couldn't hear the heart pumping like a water pump. Of course, later, "science" had to change as they developed the tools to prove to themselves what was already evident to the observers.

That brings me to the crux of the entire argument. Science doesn't always have the tools to prove something. That doesn't mean it doesn't work or it isn't there. Example: back in 1893 when Harvard considered not awarding anymore PhDs in physics because everything was already known about the Universe. Of course, a few years later they discovered things like x-rays. radiation and a gaggle of un-Newtonian concepts.

Finally, consider meteorology. A science. But, not a guaranteed, count-on-it science like gravity or physics. Certainly, it would not pass a test in a laboratory. It certainly doesn't every day on TV. Do we throw that out because the weatherman were wrong a few (read:lots) times? No.

The average meteorologist is only 80% right within a 24 hour prediction period. The odds of being right with any other prediction of a longer amount of time rapidly decreases. In other words, you'd fare better at the casino.

Here is the definition of "Science"
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge,as of facts or principles;knowledge gained by systematic study.


Well, if meteorology fits here as acceptable then, astrology really could to. See definition #4 or even #5. But, in reality astrology has never claimed to be a science (even though, oddly, many of the greatest minds in history were astrologers, too). It is an art. Are we going to have the skeptics attack artists because they aren't scientific or make them "prove" that art is beautiful/useful/uplifting what have you?



Bona Fortuna,


Anachiel
__________________
“You are never alone or helpless. The force that guides the stars guides you too.”~ Shrii Shrii Anandamurt

Last edited by Anachiel; 11-14-2011 at 11:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 11-15-2011, 10:51 AM
jazz4 jazz4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2
Re: James Randi on astrology vs Derren Brown´s response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anachiel View Post
The same could be applied to more dangerous things...hmmm, religion comes to mind. I mean, talk about extraordinary claims! They can even tell you where you will go after you die. Even astrology doesn't claim that! lol

And, I'm sorry but, who can believe a skeptic? or, trust one? Or, think they are open-minded? They aren't. They're skeptics...helllooo.

Remember Galileo? He was discredited (well, almost killed. ) for having unsubstantiated claims of cosmology. (Giordano Bruno was not so lucky. He was burned for thinking heliocentric thoughts)..Gee, they were waaayyy out there telling people that the Earth went around the Sun! Both were effectively discredited because they could not physically demonstrate that the earth circles the sun. Heliocentrism was finally made science in the 18th century and Sept. 11, 1822 the Church agreed much to all of out relief I'm sure.

Science also used to think that the heart was simply a heating device for the body. William Harvey, a physician, postulated that the heart pumped blood. He was, of course, laughed out of profession because the other "scientists" couldn't hear the heart pumping like a water pump. Of course, later, "science" had to change as they developed the tools to prove to themselves what was already evident to the observers.

That brings me to the crux of the entire argument. Science doesn't always have the tools to prove something. That doesn't mean it doesn't work or it isn't there. Example: back in 1893 when Harvard considered not awarding anymore PhDs in physics because everything was already known about the Universe. Of course, a few years later they discovered things like x-rays. radiation and a gaggle of un-Newtonian concepts.

Finally, consider meteorology. A science. But, not a guaranteed, count-on-it science like gravity or physics. Certainly, it would not pass a test in a laboratory. It certainly doesn't every day on TV. Do we throw that out because the weatherman were wrong a few (read:lots) times? No.

The average meteorologist is only 80% right within a 24 hour prediction period. The odds of being right with any other prediction of a longer amount of time rapidly decreases. In other words, you'd fare better at the casino.

Here is the definition of "Science"
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge,as of facts or principles;knowledge gained by systematic study.


Well, if meteorology fits here as acceptable then, astrology really could to. See definition #4 or even #5. But, in reality astrology has never claimed to be a science (even though, oddly, many of the greatest minds in history were astrologers, too). It is an art. Are we going to have the skeptics attack artists because they aren't scientific or make them "prove" that art is beautiful/useful/uplifting what have you?



Bona Fortuna,


Anachiel
Of course religion fits into this, and the claims of religious people are far more sinister and threatening to civilized society. Of course, we're not worried about the Amish or people who believe in astrology for that matter. But there's a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty to this thinking. As I said, if it became true, it would become part of our scientific understanding, but look at what people claiming, how they're making money off it. People act as if science has an agenda, when it's just weeding out the ********. Your point about how you can't trust a skeptic because they're skeptics, is a ridiculous statement. Skeptics just don't take things at face-value, they admit zero superiour knowledge. It is literally about logic and evidence.

Skeptics are just as concerned with people who believe the creator of the universe wants people to cut the ends of children's penis' than they are with people who believe they have knowledge about the nature of the cosmos and how we interact with it. They have different consequences, but they're equally unsubstantiated. I don't understand why people can't just be honest and say, "I don't know if this is true, there is no evidence to suggest it does." It's a power thing, a money thing -- that in itself is sinister. You cannot blame people for looking at the 'astrology subculture' as something based purely on wishful thinking. Just as the concept of an afterlife is. I hope this isn't offensive, these are just views of mine and it's interesting to discuss them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.