Is astrology a science?
  • Arun,

    If statistics, psychology and economics can be called sciences then
    astrology can also be called a science. I 'believe' the evidence can
    be statistically proven. Just because we don't know how it works, it
    should not mean it does not work.

    As you will be aware, there are numerous websites dedicated to
    astrology and defend it vehemently. A couple are below:

    However, astrology is now highly commercialised and I certainly don't
    trust any astrologers.

    Having said that, I do believe that if you live your life by taking
    responsibility for all your actions and believe in re-incarnation
    then there is no need for astrology.

    Kind Regards,
  • Atpu,
    I am more concerned with what science is, than what disciplines are "called"
    science. To me, science is the modern definition: A testable hypothesis
    which can be proven or disproven by experiments. Astrology is probably based
    on statistics.. but consider this, the statistics (at least for our Hindu
    astrology) if ever they were taken, are rather old and the sample size is
    also different. Has anybody done a fresh study of this and updated their
    predictions or are we still using 3000 year old charts.

    Regardless, statistics is just a way to obtain some relevance from a given
    data and can definitely not be said to be accurate in all instances. I am
    still waiting for someone to prove to me that "astrology is science". Or
    about how planets affect our futures. Also, correlations (which is what in
    my opinion astrology is, based on statistics) does not signify cause and
    effect.It might happen that everytime I go to a temple it rains; however
    that doesn't imply that rain causes my temple visits or vice-versa.

    I do agree wholeheartedly about "taking responsibility for one's own
    actions" but fail to see how a "belief in reincarnation" can help in any
  • Arun: If "planets control our life" is treated as a postulate, then
    there is no contradiction. A postulate by itself is neither true or
    false till proved or disproved. If not proved right, does not
    automatically mean that it is false. We are so much exposed and
    conditioned by western logic, that we treat all other systems which do
    not fall into western logic as false. Indian logic 'tarka', is little
    known today.

    In fact even in modern science, many basic concepts - parallel lines,
    infinity, sub-atomic particles, universe, speed of light etc. or your
    field -genetics- have lots of postulates and assumptions.

    We all know - effect of moon on tides, gravity on earth phenomena,
    electromagnetic radiation on human body and mind, beneficial effects of
    sound (music) and light on our health and temperament - well more can be
    added. There is no fundamental flaw in saying that planets can control
    our lives to some extent; at least as one of the several factors
    influencing our behaviour and action. We believe that smoking causes
    lung cancer, but so far have not accepted that cell phones can cause
    brain cancer. And we are bombarded with all kinds of benign (?) and
    malefic radiation from all corners of the universe. We know when one is
    strick by lightning, but not when one is exposed dangerous dose of
    cosmic rays.

    Belief or disbelief is a personal matter. But throwing away a two
    thousand year old knowledge preserved and transmitted by our ancestors
    is not a wise idea. We must learn to look through Indian eyes and use
    indian logic to understand.

    Recently I read somewhere that universe si -1% solid, 3% gas and the
    remaining 96% - empty or energy? How do I accept this?

  • Sampath,
    Just because something is 2000 years old, it isn't true. All I am saying is,
    if you call something science, then don't expect people to be sensitive
    about it. I am sensitive to other people's beliefs.. it is only when someone
    claims something as science without too much of backing evidence that it
    gets my goat.
  • A little late perhaps but my two cents on this one - there are
    personal truths and factual truths, I like to use the word truths
    instead of science as science is a combination of various, not
    necessarily always proven :) If you love someone that is a personal
    truth, meaning normally only the two people involved know it in their
    hearts that it is true, others only have opinions. The sun rises in
    the east is a factual truth, everybody knows it the same and there
    are no arguments.

    Astrology and to some extent even spiritual experiences are personal
    truths, only persons involved know whether or not it is 'true' for
    them. I personally do not believe much in predictive astrology or
    people telling you what you can/will be ten years from now, human
    beings are creatures of free will and there is no predicting how
    human will can work. But I do believe astrology is very capable of
    saying the climate around one's life, when you are going to strike it
    big and when times are going to be low. Astrology if used rightly can
    also very accurately do a psycho-profile - one's talents, strengths,
    weaknesses and direction in life. Again it is not something that is
    for the cynical or those looking for 'proof', it works if you beleive
    it will and only life can be evidence of that.

  • >when someone claims something as science without too much of backing

    Dear Arun

    Science as we know as been changing quite a bit actually, we heard
    the world being flat to round to oval etc.

    New planets, black spots, new theories of humans etc

    Science has a time line and an expiry date too :-)

    Darwin has so many disputes so far...

    Knowledge has always been there, it is always existant. We just know
    them in bits and pieces as we move along the line.

    So wether something is true or not, it need not be 2000 years or 20

    24 hrs nambikkai la pillayar pal kudichar athe mathiri 24 hrs science
    la mooligai petrol la vandi odum...

    Any evidence that we believe is temporary. What is really permanent
  • hmmmm 24 hrs science la mooligai petrol la vandi odalai.. that was on
    belief.. science basically disproved Ramar Pillai (if that is what you are
    referring to).

    I am not saying that everything we know in science is the absolute truth..
    there may very well be future discoveries which might overturn what be think
    is the truth now.. however, it is going to be based on testable hypothesis..
    and when someone shows that there is evidence to the contrary, the scientist
    will acknowledge it.. unlike "belief-based" systems where evidence to the
    contrary is usually rejected.
  • My friend, belief in itself, is a concept. Unless you believe in
    something it will never happen or would have never happened!

    Tell me one scientist who does not start with a belief in something or
    at least him or her self! Science starts with belief.
  • I was resisting myself to write, because I know this is a never ending
    topic and no one is going to accept the other's view point,however
    true it might be. I am not arguing whether astrology is science or
    not, but just sharing my thoughts that we fail to look at different

    I would simply put it - a different plane of reference. And the main
    difference between the western thought process and Indian thought
    process is this plane of reference (i think Sampath or some one said
    the same thing in different perspective). And all Indian thought
    process is based on the underlying principle of Spirituality.

    We have different number systems used in computer field. Binary,
    octal, hexa, decimal etc. the same number is depicted in different
    formats in different number system. If we encounter a species with
    just two fingers, it will laugh at us if we say a number 8 saying its
    only your belief and it has no proof...until we prove that my 8 is
    nothing but your 1000. On the other hand, if the species with 2
    fingers say 1000, we will by default assume its one thousand,unless we
    understand that its binary and it represents 8 to them. We know how to
    convert between these numbers and hence we accept them. what if there
    is a numeric system based on say 15. Till we find the conversion
    process, we will says its nonsense or rather belief.

    The western thought process accepts only things which are
    comprehensible to Human minds. If anything is incomprehensible we try
    to neglect it saying its nonsense.

    Humans defined God in Human form, because we can only relate to
    ourselves and see things only in our perspective. If the buffaloes are
    to conceive a god, it will surely conceive god in a form of buffalo.
    If it sees the god form of Humans, it will laugh and say humans are
    uncultured and is not civilized enough. This is the flaw we find with
    most of the religions. Our ancestors knew to think in different plane
    of reference and could accept god in buffalo form or human form where
    as other religions did not or rather cannot because of the plane of
    reference we think in. In the outer space, all our beliefs or even
    facts goes for a toss. Person in the outer space will say, north and
    south and east and west is only your belief and it has no proof,
    untill he comes down to earth and see and understand what directions mean.

    Maybe,it seems i am digressing from the topic, but I am just saying
    that just that we cant prove or disprove something, we should not come
    to conclusion. A belief system will surely come to an end at some
    point, but cannot prolong for so long a time. If we have lost the
    science behind it, its our fault not astrology's fault.

    Recently I watched a move 'Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy'. Didnt had
    the patience to read the book, hence saw the movie. Hilarious and
    absolute nonsense, atleast at the outset. But absurd in what sense,
    our human perception again. In the climax the human is told that all
    the things happening in the earth is a experimental project sponsored
    by .... MICE. Yes the little Mice. When the human say, its humans who
    does experiment with mice, the answer is, thats what the mice made you
    to think. ithu eppadi iruku...

    I am reading an ebook called 'God's Debris' by Scott Adams. Really a
    good one, trying to answer things which are similar to our Indian
    thought process. It challenges the known beliefs of God but trying to
    say that what we think about god generally is not true, but its more
    than that. Which is very much the Hindu way of thinking. Atleast thats
    what I perceive. I can be wrong or right (because I am yet to finish
    the book). But all it says is,in different context the meaning of what
    we know might totally change.

    Katrathu kai man with whatever we know, if we aruge I am
    right and you are wrong...what shall I say, the gnanis have said it
  • Thanks Satish for your thoughts. Again, maybe it didn't come across very
    clearly..I am not claiming we know all.. am just saying don't call
    astrology science.. there is a distinct difference here. Yes, sure maybe
    science is to deal with things that our minds can comprehend but then that
    is the definition. Under that definition, astrology is NOT science. If you
    want to change the definition, then you are welcome to do so, but then
    please mention the definition as you understand it. Moreover, according to
    me, there is only "science".. no western or eastern "science". There are
    western or eastern belief systems and that I figure is what everyone else
    seems to be referring to.
  • Dear Arun,

    Please re-read the first few lines of my previous mail :)

    Everyone is right in their own perspective. There is nothing called
    wrong in this prabancham. only the intensity of the right varies.

    As per science, most of the things in the world are classified as
    either a living thing or non living thing. Whatever moves, has life -
    classified as living things. Whatever doesnt have activity of their
    own are classified as non living thing. So movement defines life. Even
    a man in coma is considered a living being because there are movements
    or activities happening inside the body, though the body doesnt move.
    This is the basic science we read in 2nd or 3rd std in schools.

    There is a man and a rock. Obviously the man is living thing and rock
    a non living thing. I think everyone accepts this. If the man looks at
    the rock all thorough his life, he will conclude that the rock doesnt
    change at all. very true.

    Cut the shot and zoom out in to the far away space. As per Einsteins
    theory of relativity (as Ravi said belief is the basis of science and
    almost all theories are belief's many of which are accepted without
    proof) if we send out one among a twin to outer space and if the
    person returns after a long time, he will be much younger than his
    twin on earth. The biological clock ticks slowly in outer space. if
    thats the case of just a human being, a million years on earth is just
    a few fractions for the omnipotent god. If we say god is beyond
    science, lets again take the twin who traveled in space and say lives
    for a million year. For him the same rock on the earth, which never
    changes form in a mans lifetime, might seem to change shape due to
    various factors, might get eroded, become sand or change form to other
    material also. It will be like a movie watched in fast forward, and
    the rock changes shapes in a million year.

    So which is correct, the rock never changes shape as per the first
    observation or it changes shape as per second observation? Both are
    accepted as per science, right.

    Cut the shot and zoom in to the rock, till the molecular level. We see
    atoms and inside that protons electrons and neutrons. We know that
    these stuff move at random pace and is always in a state of continuous
    motion. So does the rock make any movement or not? Internally it does
    have motion.

    All the three scenarios I stated above are acceptable as per known
    science. So,what shall I conclude? The rock has motion or not? The
    rock changes shape or not? both yes and no, depending on which
    perspective we look.

    Our ancestors said that the Sun god travels in a chariot with seven
    horses but only one wheel. We say it is mythology or just belief. It
    also says that arunan is the charioteer of Sun god. Ok, just belief.
    Myth. Today we know by science that, light has seven basic colours,
    can traverse only one path, meaning will leave only one track and
    cannot take two tracks at the same time, the rays of the sun reaches
    earth even before the sun rises. Seven colours are seven horses, the
    single wheel is the single track traced by sun and Arunan is nothing
    but the rays of the sun. The charioteer will reach a point before the
    person sitting in the chariot. Isn't there a difference in eastern
    science and western science? I would say, eastern science is for
    common man, western science is for intellectuals.

    Science have established that all the matter in the universe is made
    up on the same basic elements at the microcosm level. I think our
    forefathers were brilliant guys, they put this in simple statement -
    'Andhathil ullathu pindam, pindathil ullathu andam'. Just because they
    didnt prove it with microscope or other scientific methods (we never
    know whether they really used some science to arrive at this
    conclusion or not) it is not wrong. The same concept has been proved
    by science today. Andathilum pindathilum irupathu onre. The universe
    is made up of the same basic elements.

    The value of turmeric, neem etc found by advance science in the west
    is like drinking water to us. Even an illiterate in a remote village
    of India will be using it without even realizing the science behind it.
    I am not that knowledgeable and sorry if I have blabbered something,
    but all I say is, Indian knowledge cannot be thrown away just because
    it cannot be proved or the west doesnt accept it.

    Please re-read my first line of this mail. :)
  • (eastern science is for
    common man, western science is for intellectuals.)

    I think it should be the other way round. The Eastern science can be
    comprehended only by the enlightened masters who have *experienced* it. Your
    next para actually gives an example of it -

    (Science have established that all the matter in the universe is made
    up on the same basic elements at the microcosm level.)
    A truly enlightened master actually experiences this oneness with the cosmos
    and all mater here. Nithyananda explains humorously in his discourse on
    Shiva Sutras -

    There are many more videos where this is elaborated upon. This one explains
    his personal experience in the oneness

    I think present day science does not have the technology to prove the great
    inner science practiced by our ancient realized masters!
  • Since I am a new member in ponniyinselvan@yahoogroups , I dont know the reason for the messages sent to me. I m blinking. Can I send my queries to you?
  • Dear SPS, extremely well put!! 'Kandavar vindalar...' is a
    Thirumoolar quote, is it not?
  • Astrology believes in the concept that the future already exists.
    Science tries to invent the future.
    We find new things and discover / invent a lot as time moves on using
    science (which is a quantified sequence of physics-chemistry-math).
    What science discovers in the future, astrology says it exists
    Astrology uses math / physics and chemistry (at times) - it tells
    what science shows us in the future.
    Astrology is not science but an art, greater than any science can
    When the Sun sets in the US, it already has risen in Japan - the
    future already exists, we just see it as the universe unfolds.
  • Dear Satish,
    You probably already know this:
    India's Greenwich was Ujjain.
    I'd love more information.
  • Dear Kathy, the Tropic of Cancer passes through Ujjain as also first
    meridian of longitude. A scientific observatory from 17th century is
    here (also called Veda Shala) from where various planteray movements
    were observed for astronomy. Not sure what state it is in now.

  • Dear Malathi,
    It's MP.
  • Kathie, actually i was thinking of the verb state(=condition) it the
    old veda shala is in, considering how all things are maintained in
    India :)

  • Ravi,If you can show evidence of how astrology uses "maths/phy/chem" I would
    appreciate it. Just stating something doesn't make it into a fact. :)

    Also, I think I had better keep quiet now since there is going to be no
    resolution to this gap in our thinking. Science and philosophy are not quite
    the same things but they seem to be to most here.
  • Arun, have you read Frijitzov Capra's Tao of Physics - it has great
    parellels between eastern mysticism and western science. Yes there is
    no resolution to this time honored great debate but assume we can all
    agree there are parellels and deep thinking in both areas.

  • Astrology is pure mathematics and physical Science.
    I am doing PhD in Vedas in which I quote the astronomy and human body
    with Utkal University of Culture
  • What Mr.Ravi said is 200% correct.
    I can't explain more on this thro net as I am to submit my thesis paper in 2010.
    but once it is submitted and Viva attended I will take a class for all of you!
    It is pure Matscience
  • Hi Malathi,
    Yes I have. A long time ago and even then I thought some of the comparisons
    were a little far-fetched. I never denied that there was deep thinking
    involved. My original objection was against calling astrology science :)

    Deep thinking does not make something science nest ces pas?:)

  • Hi,

    interesting details..

    UJJAIN .. reminded me of several things ..

    BHOJA RAJA stories..
    His friend KALIDASA stories..

    And it appears BHOJA ( I, II or III ?) became good friend of RAJENDRA
    I... and Bhoja handling Gazni (with the knowledge that Rajendra's
    Army rushing)Gazni moving to Somnathpur... to loot..

    and UJJAIN MAHALAM WORSHIP .... (THERE is another Ujjai mahakali) in
    Samayapuram (about 1 KM south of Mariamman !)

    regards/ sps
  • Arun

    It will take big mails etc to explain various aspects on this
    relation, I am not going to go there on this.

    Just a basic word here, I dont want to prolong this however.
    Astrology is not psychic work, you need charts and positions of
    various planets combined with the time. Earlier days, there were many
    calculations (math) based on planets to plan a chart. Today the logic
    and numbers are punched into a software and a chart is printed out.
    Without having a base line, there is no way you can build from, a plan
    / layout etc, that plan is based on math, please check it out.

    There is a lot to go on, but i am gonna keep it simple and leave it at

    This is not philosophy, but more of logic.
  • I agree that there is math and logic underlying astrology. That said
    interpreting what the chart says is not an easy skill and does
    require psychic abilities among others. I firmly refuse to believe
    anyone's future is 'already written' since that contradicts many
    things including we are resposnible for our own karma and being
    creatures of free will. Astrology if used wisely can be a good map
    for our path in life, that is all.

    Like I said before since interpretation is a big part of this tool it
    cannot be called science in a literal sense of the word, it is a
    personal science or what is true for an individual that only he/she
    knows, that is all.
  • Arun, I read it a long time ago, now you have inspired me to read it
    again :) I didn't think the comparisons were far fetched, rather
    extremely well thought out - a westerner normaly does not have an
    agenda to prove these things right as it is in our culture so usually
    it comes from a place of openness and is worth examining and

    I will try to listen to the cd again this week. What specifically did
    you think was 'far fetched'?

  • >
    > Deep thinking does not make something science nest ces pas?:)
    > Arun

    I remarked some of Einsteins theory of relativity. Were those theories
    originated by experiments and proved physically? Deep thinking
    resulted in many a theories. Plane of reference,clock ticking slow in
    outer space, e=mcsqared etc are physically impossible to prove and yet
    accepted as science.

    I already told you and you now accept, we can never come to conclusion
    on these topics.

    But from these discussions, we again find one thing - western
    knowledge rejects everything beyond their understanding. If they
    cannot understand something, they immediately reject it saying its
    false or baseless and just a myth, belief. Eastern knowledge tries to
    understand things which are not known to them. Whether you accept it
    or not, thats the truth and thats the reason so many religions could
    thrive in India where as rest of the world are so intolerant. Again,
    the basics of sanathana dharma are so interlinked with nature and
    nature is nothing but the so called science, driven by the physical
    and chemical laws.
  • There is no doubt at all that tolerance is the backbone of Indian
    culture/thinking and Sanatana Dharma does embrace oneness with nature.
    Also is true the arrogance that has resulted in the western world as
    a result of scientific advancements and progress that reject outright
    antyhign that is not immediately comprehensible to the human mind.

    It is also true that outright acceptance in our country of anything
    immediately not comprehensible - people claiming Ganesha drinking
    milk while it is absorbed temporarily into the stone crevice or
    dropped on the ground. A completely unreasonable and overrated beleif
    in astrology that creates lack of confidence and inaction among other
    things. Blind poojas and overt belief in outside(divine?) assistance
    to change matters without focusing on what is wrong within.

    So here we go..the two extremes of culture that can only be bridged
    by thinking, believing, ordinary poeple like US. This link has a
    great argument between scientist/beliver Deepak Chopra and
    rationalist/athiest Richard Dawkins where Chopra attempts to answer
    some arguments related to science on faith itself.

  • And you know where I stand on this :) Firmly with Dawkins!:-D
  • Really? Dawkins is a nut, a half baked atheist who attacks western
    belief systems and is pretty ignorant on others belief systems. I
    even saw an interveew with him on PBs, he was very unimpressive.
    I suggest you become an EVR fan instead, a lot more well researched.

    Best of luck !!
  • Hi Satish

    I new what you intended to mean! I was just trying to reinforce it. Nope, no
    sarcasm was felt. What a wealth of knowledge this forum shares.
  • Deep thinking will help in discovering (or rediscovering) the science!
  • Not really.. I beg to differ. Have you read his books? Read the selfish
    gene. And also the God Delusion :)
  • And I would rather be with an atheist nut than a religious nut.. much safer!
  • Any nut is a nut. Dawkins's books are a retort against western
    religion. I know you say western science and estern science do not
    exist but you have to admit western religion and eastern religion do
    exist and widely differ in their paradigms about God. Dawkins was
    questioned extensively on PBS on concepts of onness, benefits of
    yoga/meditation and buddhism among other things and he drew a
    complete blank.

    Books like these are necessary due to rise of post 911 religious
    fundamentalistm in the west and it would be best if christian fundies
    dealt with them, not us.

    Deepak Chopra and Fritozv Capra are among pioneering scientific minds
    who try to bridge this huge gap. If we want to talk about it we have
    to talk of what they say, and perhaps with an intetion to
    understanding what is positive on either side (mysticism/relgiion
    versus science).
  • Astrology has nothing to do with God. I dont understand what your drag
    on God is supposed to mean.

    Any musician cannot become a Beethoven, similarly any astrologer
    cannot become the astrologer. The art of perfection does not take a
    few credit hours to finish, it takes almost a life time.

    A typical good astrologist would be brilliant in numbers and amazing
    in multi co-relational thinking and mapping. Something that takes ages
    to master.

    I think you are confusing astrology with religion / God etc, that is
    not appropriate.

    Again, Astrology is an art and science is a small part of it. Math is
    the basic building block of astrology.

    If you want to debate Dawkins thats a different thread, i am sure
    there are enough religious nuts here who can graduate him to become a
    fully baked nut. :-)
  • Ravi, I agree with you to some extent that Astrology is not
    completely to do with God. But Astrology does have a lot to do with
    religion. There is vedic astrology, tibetan budddhist astrology and
    western takes on astrology. Vedic astrology which is what is most
    common in India is got a lot to do with religion and appeasing
    navagrahas if necessary, it is impossible to separate the two.Tibetan
    Buddhist astrology is wholly related to Buddhist principles.

    I believe in astrology to some extent myslef, am not a non believer.
    But astrology is not a science no matter how you look at it, since
    two very good astrologers can give very different interpretations of
    the same chart. What happens in reality of course can be an entirely
    third interpretation also.

  • Malathi

    I am no scholar, but in my humble opinion, i tend to believe in
    astrology as a superior form of science which humans cannot master -
    yet or have lost the skill.

    Definition of Science from some dictionaries:
    Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses
    observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural
    phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of
    knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the
    word science often describes any systematic field of study or the
    knowledge gained from it.

    Astrology is a series of knowledge based on numbers and patterns,
    astrologers observe, experiment and try to explain something that is
    natural just that it happens in the future, which makes it a

    By method of common deduction, if you consider all religions and their
    astrological and remove the name buddhist/vedic/chinese etc you will
    find that there is an astro common ground. So common deduction method
    logically proves astrology presence, where religions tap into that and
    give a flavor of Almighty to it.

    Many a time you can find two different doctors giving two types of
    treatment for same symptom, well that concept is applicable to any
    study - interpretation is subject to the individual mind. Just because
    two astrologers differ that does not mean the chart is changed. The
    study of that chart is science, navagraha - are in essence planets and
    their shades or dust. It is no myth that the sun/moon/mars etc have
    their electro magnetic impulses on earth, we , humans , being composed
    of base carbon that evolved from the mega dust, will respond to these
    cosmic 'beings'. When the great oceans raise on full tide during the
    full moon, how can we not respond the the 'lord Chandra' - lets call
    it logic :-)
  • ravi, I agree with you that astrology has depth to it that has
    probably been lost over time. And I am not any scholar either :) But
    my personal experience has been that vedic/tibetan buddhist/chinese
    astrologies do not work same way or give same interpretations. Even
    how the charts are drawn are very different. One has to go with what
    works for one personally.

    Where the human will is involved no accuracy is possible, that is the
    whole point. Astrology deals with humans who are capable of changing
    their minds and so how can it possibly be an accurate science? The
    word science loosely used often means factual accuracy, although as
    you rightly said it can be extended to mean a host of other things.

    I agree 100% with moon affecting tides. My uncle who works with
    mentally disabled often talks about moon affecting schizophrenics and
    seriously mentally ill people. I can talk at great length about moon
    effect on certain feminine issues too (out of place in this forum).

    Bottom line I think - for Kathy and Arun perhaps - you dont' have to
    believe in Astrology or anything. Just don't dismiss as hocus pocus
    what works for others, and has depth and wisdom that is not easily
    comprehended.:) It is not really without reason that so much research
    goes into UFOs and FBI uses psychics too, isn't it not :)

  • Malathi

    I got your point, 'vidhiyai madhiyal vellalam' nu solaringa - correct,
    naan solrathu enna na - vithiyai mathiyal vellalam nu vidhi la ezuthi
    iruntha thaan vella mudiyum'...

    I believe, this vidhi is pre-programmed already, like i said in one of
    the earlier posts, we just see it as the universe unfolds.
  • LOL:) I tend to agree with you although I would reserve that argument
    for those of us in second half of life, in other words it is best
    learnt via experience :))

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters