Answer to Mark Hochman July 11, 1988 On March 25, 1988 you wrote an article called +quot;S

						 Answer to Mark Hochman
							 July 11, 1988


	On March 25, 1988 you wrote an article called "SIDEREAL.TXT" and 
submitted it to the BBS Intervision among others (since there was no 
copyright notice attached I have included it on my BBS Astro-Net). The 
intent of this article was to propound the conviction that Sidereal 
astrology "works" and Tropical astrology doesn't.

	Everyone must be allowed to express their opinion. Still, you 
mentioned several opinions as FACT, without modifiers, insisting that 
they be taken as an "authoritarian's" wise, sage wisdom, to be 
swallowed by those who might wish to benefit by it.

	You said that Tropical Astrology was to blame for your inconsistent 
results, but you did not provide the reader examples of what constitutes
satisfactory results and what does not. If it was simple "Sun Sign" 
astrology no argument made could be valid.

	But the opinion you expressed as fact, where I feel was not 
appropriate, was [to paraphrase] "few astrologers are aware of the 
'problem' [my quotes], and those that do will not admit they made a 
mistake." You said that these astrologers had an interest to keep "the 
mistake" quiet and not tell their clients, least the client "know" all 
the tropical astrology bull shit that came before wasn't valid. You 
also expressed the opinion that few astrologers are even interested in 
astronomy.

	First, I haven't found any astrologers who are not aware of the 
Precision of the Equinox. Yet they use the Tropical Zodiac with good 
results at times and excellent results at others (the Guaquelin "Mars 
Effect" and "Plus Zones" were discovered using the Tropical Zodiac, 
which tends to invalidate the argument that they used the wrong 
Zodiac!).

	A great many astrologers are keenly interested in astronomy. Better 
tools allow them to perform better, and provide better service to their 
clients. One of the few times Astrologer and Astronomer "fought" 
side-by-side was against the light pollution that threatens to close 
Mt. Pallomar above San Diego-- the observatory got substantial support 
from those astrologers (as a group) who wish to keep the observatory 
open. The point is that many, many astrologers are interested in 
astronomy.

	Sidereal Astrology is great for PREDICTING gold and silver futures, 
which is pretty remarkable. The Tropical Zodiac can't come close in 
it's predictive ability. Still, you said that Sidereal astrology 
matches what's up in the sky, and tropical astrology doesn't. This 
isn't true.

	The constellations are not each 30 degrees wide. So using your 
logic Sidereal astrology, to be the ONLY valid Zodiac, should have 
overlapping signs, Scorpio being some 65 degrees, with a nice large gap 
between Pisces and Aquarius, etc. Since these are your rules, why does
the Sidereal Zodiac still have 30 degrees to a sign?

   I am not saying, and cannot say, that Sidereal is not valid. Unlike
you, however, I am saying that the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are 
both valid. You blame the Tropical Zodiac for poor results while I 
would blame the astrologer.



                               David Rice
						 Astro-Net (1:103/503.0)