Deb wrote:Curtis - Mark doesn't have the ability to delete or mess about with anyones messaging system - neither do I. I think the system only allows you to archive a certain number of messages and once that is reached older messages are deleted, so that might be what has happened to your messages.

I still have messages dating back to 2014 and my correspondence with Mark would have been around Sept this year. So either they disappeared somehow or I'm not remembering how I contacted Mark. I could swear it was using this forum though, but I'll try checking FB.

Mark,

Zoidsoft wrote:

I was quite happy that you eventually added me to the Clinton win list, but you did it after the election was over. I was monitoring it for some time.

That is not correct Curtis. Your article was listed along with several others ages before the election. If I had failed to put your piece up as you claim I would fully understand your frustration. But its simply not the case. I am totally mystified how you can be claiming something so grossly inaccurate. I am beginning to feel you have your own personal agenda here and are seeking to discredit me for some reason over this issue. Perhaps your theory being that by making a massive fuss over this other astrologers will recognise how non-committal your article was.

Zoidsoft wrote:

The problem is that people thought that I was in the landslide win category because of the way you listed me when I told you in a private email that it was going to tighten and be close at the end. It's misleading of my position.

And exactly how is that my fault Curtis? Predictions on a Clinton win came in all varieties. If people were too lazy to look at what you actually wrote that was surely their problem.

And rather than enter into an attack on my approach here and on Chris Brennan's blog all you had to do was request removal from the list privately.

I did remove all reference to you earlier this week. I have still not circulated my finalised list on numerous astrological groups which I intend to do. Unfortunately, a few people saw the draft version and circulated it around on FB before it was ready. I dont have my own site at present and that is a major downside of using Skyscript for something like this. If I do anything like this again it will be on my own blog where only the finalised version is released.

Keep in mind I have been trying to keep up with predictions all over the astrological community. I have looked at over 100 and about ninety are currently listed. After sticking your piece up I gave it no further thought.

Fair enough you thought the race would be tight. I fully accept that. But ultimately, all I focused on was whether people predicted a Clinton or Trump win. Sorting out the nuances of dozens of separate predictions to suit each individual astrologer was never practical in this kind of exercise.

I am sorry if you feel this has had a negative impact on your astrological reputation. But that is always the risk you take when you make a public prediction.

From what I can see the astrologers really getting the flak are the 12 astrologers that sat on the two ISAR panels which unanimously predicted a Clinton win.

The whole issue about those who predicted a Clinton win were somehow suggesting a landslide in their predictions is a fallacious meme put out by William Stickevers all over Facebook. I challenged William on this repeatedly before the election and pointed out the vast majority of astrologers just focused on a likely winner not the electoral scale of any victory. But he has continued to promote this myth in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

Mark

Mark wrote:Mark,

Zoidsoft wrote:

I was quite happy that you eventually added me to the Clinton win list, but you did it after the election was over. I was monitoring it for some time.

That is not correct Curtis. Your article was listed along with many others ages before the election. If I had failed to put your piece up as you claim I would fully understand your frustration. But its simply not the case. I am totally mystified how you can be claiming something so grossly inaccurate. I am beginning to feel you have your own agenda here and are seeking to discredit me for some reason over this issue.

Zoidsoft wrote:

The problem is that people thought that I was in the landslide win category because of the way you listed me when I told you in a private email that it was going to tighten and be close at the end. It's misleading of my position.

And exactly how is that my fault Curtis? Predictions on a Clinton win came all in all varieties. If people were too lazy to look at what you actually wrote that was surely their problem.

This is getting blown out of proportion. I just wanted to clarify that my article was not in the definitive win for Clinton category. I checked a few times before the election and about the only way I can explain not seeing it is if my browser cache wasn't cleared properly. But then there's the missing emails that I tried to reference that aren't here (If you deleted them from your own box, does it delete in the other box as well? I've noticed this odd behavior that seems unique to Skyscript where the outbox and sent box seem to be reference linked depending upon whether the recipient checks their email and wonder if deleted emails were also reference linked?).

I didn't really care that much about it, just one name in a long list, but I was beginning to wonder if you had an agenda after it seemed like I was being ignored then it appeared after the election was over under the list. I thought about contacting you before the election to remind you and assumed you were just too busy. I let it slide for a couple of weeks, but it kept nagging at me in the back of my mind, but had more important things to do. Now I'm temporarily caught up, but I don't see any point of pursuing this any further. I'm sorry if you have bad feelings over it.

Would anyone please be so kind and post the link to the list everybody here is talking about?
Thanks in advance...

Aurelia wrote:Would anyone please be so kind and post the link to the list everybody here is talking about?
Thanks in advance...

It was in the first post I made at the top:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9205

I just found this. I mean minutes ago and I've barely read it. This is a prediction that Donald Trump would win the US Presidential election made in September 2015! I haven't read it in depth yet, but it has to do with the recurrence of 22 Gemini throughout US history. I might quibble here and there, but results are results especially when the prediction was made not only 14 months before the election, but prior to Trump's nomination. Enjoy.

http://astrologsmiljanagavrancic.blogsp ... trump.html

Zoidsoft wrote:

This is getting blown out of proportion.

I couldn't agree more. But you were the one that thought this relatively minor issue deserved a thread all to itself and went into a public attack on me elsewhere without even trying to communicate with me first.

Zoidsoft wrote:

I just wanted to clarify that my article was not in the definitive win for Clinton category. I checked a few times before the election and about the only way I can explain not seeing it is if my browser cache wasn't cleared properly.

All I can say Curtis is that you were definitely listed long before the election. But its all rather academic now. You have been removed anyway as I agree your article was too non-committal to qualify for a listing.

Zoidsoft wrote:

I didn't really care that much about it, just one name in a long list, but I was beginning to wonder if you had an agenda after it seemed like I was being ignored then it appeared after the election was over under the list.

My only real ''agenda'' in creating the list has been to collect data on techniques that were relatively successful. Its certainly not about shaming or embarrassing anyone or building up a cult of personalty for successful predictors come to that. As a community I think its important to regularly record what seems to work better and what appears less successful. Sadly, many people fixate on personalities. But the reality is that noone issuing regular mundane predictions gets it right all the time. Only narcissists claim such astrological infallibility.

Mark

Is there data to show that those who dealt with one candidate only fared better than those who discussed both and a few other things thrown in.

PD

zoidsoft wrote: Do we have any right to claim certainty if we also claim that the election will be close?

Maybe in future, to avoid all doubt, one could simply say that the election is too close for them to call one way or another. Of course lots of people don't bother predicting these kinds of events precisely for those reasons.

There are possibly two issues here. One is mundane. The other relates specifically to a candidate, where ideally, it should be possible to detect how his/her life will change at a particular significant point in time. If someone is going to become the next president of the US, I would expect something to show up in the 10th house or MC.