In article <Fcs4b.23$NF5.11@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, <viv.eshwar@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tom Kerr wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Then this chart doesn't apply to him as much.  It's about the group
>> >karma of Australia as a whole.  He's Australian, is he not?
>> 
>> That's for you to find out. Just because someone lives in a country 
>> doesn't mean they were born there. It's kind of interesting that you make 
>> wholesale assumptions without checking the actual data - it helps 
>> to explain many of your posts.
>
>Anglesea has billed himself as an Australian.  If that's false it's his
>problem, not mine.  But I don't think it's false.  One way or the other,
>I think he has himself identified with the place.  It could be a real
>screwed-up perception about himself, but it's a real perception.  
>

You wrote:

"The people who take birth
in Australia have done that for the sake of the expansion of
consciousness and spiritual development.  Make no mistake about it.  No
matter how they come off, and no matter what they say about themselves,
this is what they're really about.  Even the Tithi of this chart -
Ekadasi - is about spirituality."

What you are now saying is that actual birthdata are not relevant in 
astrology.

>I don't have a need to dig beneath the surface to find out what he
>really is.  That would be unrealistic, and also insulting.  I think he
>deserves to be taken at face value.  If he's lying about himself, whose
>problem is that, really?

But using wrong data for both Wally's birthdata and Australia's data, and 
then supposedly basing your opinion on that data is not insulting?

You've basically admitted that birthdata are irrelevant in astrology and 
that the only thing that's important is *your* opinion of someone based on 
their usenet posts. 

Don't worry, you're not the first person to do this, and certainly not the 
first astrologer to make a fool of themselves in this way.