This week’s Ecosophian offering is the monthly (well, more or less!) open post to field questions and encourage discussion among my readers. All the standard rules apply — no profanity, no sales pitches, no trolling, no rudeness, no long screeds proclaiming the infallible truth of fill in the blank — but since there’s no topic, nothing is off topic…well, with one exception.
The exception? For the second time in just over a year, some people have pulled one comment out of context from one of my mundane astrological predictions, found some bit of current media chatter that contradicts it, and are running around shrieking at the top of their lungs that this proves I’m wrong about everything, so there. It’s highly amusing, and also a useful reminder of just how emotionally brittle some people are about certain political issues.
Now of course the internet has the attention span of a gnat, and so do a fair number of its denizens. Expecting them to recognize that a forecast for six months needs to be assessed after six months, not six days, is probably reaching. Still, if someone predicts that the next year will be unusually rainy, you haven’t disproved them, you know, by yelling about how you went to a picnic yesterday and it didn’t rain a drop.
With that in mind, I’m going to invite anyone who wants to discuss the accuracy of last week’s predictions to join me in a discussion here the week following March 18, 2020, when we’ll be able to look back over the six months just past and see how well I did. Until then, the accuracy of last week’s ingress chart forecast is off topic, and anyone who tries to talk about it here will have their entire comment text deleted and replaced with the label [troll with inadequate reading comprehension skills]. As Stan Lee used to put it, ‘nuf said.
With that said, have at it!