PDA

View Full Version : Statistical Tests of Astrological Predictions?



lpetrich
2002-Jan-22, 11:41 PM
Although, as Isaac Asimov has noted, it is commonly accepted among serious scientists that the characteristic quality of astrological lore is very like the excrement of the male bovine, there have been some who have tried to do statistical tests of various astrological predictions.

For the most part, such tests have come out negative; the only positive claims I recall are those of Gauquelin, whose claims are significantly different from "traditional" astrology. And even those are most likely a false alarm.

My main reason for being skeptical of astrology is because the "signs" of the Zodiac are entirely artificial, and do not have much connection to the actual appearance of the stars. Also, people elsewhere in the world have invented different "signs" and constellations; I wonder if anyone has done a collection of some of these.

Also, the planets' influences are derived from the deities that they are associated with, and not their actual features. Thus, Venus is associated with love and Mars with war, even though Venus is a hot hellhole and Mars has an almost Earthlike surface. One might expect Mars to be the friendly one and Venus the hostile one.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-23, 11:50 AM
Astronomers can be ambivalent about the effects of astrology.

On the one hand, astrology has contributed to astronomy. The original astronomers were the astrologers. Even today, astrology generates a bit of an interest in astronomy--people who wouldn't otherwise care are still interested in seeing the stars of "their" sign.

But astrology has mutated from science to something totally unrecognizable. This is not unusual in the annals of history. Even mechanics took some divagating pathways along its way--the most famous, and most successful, was that of Newton. They both started with some observations about the universe and a hypothesis about how those observations occurred, and it drew increasingly absurd conclusions.

In the days of Ptolemy, the seasons were regular and predictable. The timing of the flooding of the Nile was charted by the stars, and was a valuable service provided by the early scientists. The effects of the stars were obvious. When the Sun aligned with Sirius, the dog star, the increased heat gave us the dog days of summer. The regular seasonal changes in weather, and consequently diet, made what we now call SAD (seasonal affective disorder) just as predictable--and the effects showed up in the health and demeanor of the newborns. Astrology was a nascent science.

Of course, the hypothesis that it was the stars themselves that caused the regularity in moods and personalities is in error. But we've long searched for ways to predict the future for ourselves, and people everywhere are trying different things--even things that have long since been discredited. Old ideas are tried out, revamped, reworked, retested. Some people fervently advocate hypotheses that have virtually no chance of success. It's all part of the vast network of science.

aurorae
2002-Jan-23, 09:49 PM
On 2002-01-22 18:41, lpetrich wrote:
For the most part, such tests have come out negative; the only positive claims I recall are those of Gauquelin, whose claims are significantly different from "traditional" astrology. And even those are most likely a false alarm.


Debunking astrology is so simple that an elementary school student can easily do it.

See this example from Project Astro (a program for grades 4-9):

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology.html


No challenge here.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

2002-Jan-24, 02:44 AM
Well? My affinity for Astrology B4 Astronomy
or ol/on for short has two main causes
Let me call the first cause Moon Rise
just to keep the first part short.
For myself I find the predictions of WHEN
the Moon will rise or set, easier to find
AND more accurate for l than n. {1st point}
secondly about the Signs
you know Aries{Ram} to Picies{Fish} Easter
Rat to Bore { chineese } and Corn to L___
{Mayan} may say [long term] what a complete
culture may believe over vast periods of time
while opinions of Astronomer's may change
over night about the most cherrished of
their tenants. Give me the l anytime and take your n to home

Chip
2002-Jan-24, 04:53 AM
On 2002-01-23 06:50, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Astronomers can be ambivalent about the effects of astrology.

On the one hand, astrology has contributed to astronomy. The original astronomers were the astrologers.


Interesting comments. As you implied, from a historical viewpoint, astrology has some value, as the astrologers of old kept records of events in the sky. On example: Chinese records of the "guest star" (i.e. nova) that resulted in the Crab Nebula. References to the star being also seen in the daytime gives perspective on the intensity of the event.

There is also the danger of bending the interpretation of historical texts to fit one's theory, (i.e. Velokovsky).

ToSeek
2002-Jan-24, 01:17 PM
On 2002-01-23 21:44, HUb' wrote:
you know Aries{Ram} to Picies{Fish} Easter
Rat to Bore { chineese } and Corn to L___
{Mayan} may say [long term] what a complete
culture may believe over vast periods of time
while opinions of Astronomer's may change
over night about the most cherrished of
their tenants. Give me the l anytime and take your n to home


It's easy to hold to your beliefs when you're impervious to anything contrary to them. Give me people who will change their beliefs based on the evidence any day.

2002-Jan-24, 02:51 PM
On 2002-01-24 08:17, ToSeek wrote:


On 2002-01-23 21:44, HUb' wrote:
you know Aries{Ram} to Picies{Fish} Eastern
Rat to Bore { chineese } and Corn to L___
{Mayan} may say [long term] what a complete
culture may believe over vast periods of time
while opinions of Astronomer's may change
over night about the most cherrished of
their tenants. Give me the l anytime and take your n to home


It's easy to hold to your beliefs when you're impervious to anything contrary to them. Give me people who will change their beliefs based on the evidence any day.
8:21 A.M. Lunas?

Wiley
2002-Jan-24, 11:59 PM
On 2002-01-23 16:49, aurorae wrote:
Debunking astrology is so simple that an elementary school student can easily do it.

See this example from Project Astro (a program for grades 4-9):

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology.html


No challenge here.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



I seem to remember a program on PBS where the Amazing Randi did Activity 3 -mixed up horoscopes- with a bunch of high school students. Anybody else see this?

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-25, 05:24 PM
Gimme a sec Wiley...erm no gimme a couple o years. Still running Hub throught the translator stalk mark IV. Might take a bit.

As for astrology and astronomy being coentwined (new word, whoo hoo!) for as long as us chimps could look up and see stars, there have been some who wondered why the stars existed and some who wondered what the stars meant to them. I certain bright star rising on a really good day for one man might mean nothing more to guy on the other side of the Earth than Bessie had a good bowel movement this night. We read what we want into the stars, and they in turn just keep doing their thing and glowing back at us. We'll fit in certain associations into our relatively narrow field of view and throw out the rest. Other chimps will figure out why the stars do what they do, explain it to us, and then both sides (like all of human history) will continue to belive what they do and stare implacably at the other side until someone blinks. And considering how strong human testicular fortitude (no offense to the smarter half) is, we'll be waiting for one side to blink for a very long time. Case in point? Religion says to science prove faith wrong, when science has no way in heck of doing so. Science says to religion prove fact wrong, when religion has no way of doing so.

Astronomy,astrology.... who cares... they both got us looking up and onward.

Till one proves the other right, I'll keep tending me trees and working on the stalk mark 3. What is that word for "whilst looking for one thing you discover an other?"

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-25, 05:48 PM
What is that word for "whilst looking for one thing you discover an other?"
Serendipity

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 07:24 PM
On 2002-01-25 12:24, ChallegedChimp wrote:
Case in point? Religion says to science prove faith wrong, when science has no way in heck of doing so. Science says to religion prove fact wrong, when religion has no way of doing so.
Stephen Jay Gould describes that, in Rock of Ages, I think, as "Non-Overlapping Magisterium," or NOMA.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-25, 08:13 PM
On 2002-01-25 14:24, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-25 12:24, ChallegedChimp wrote:
Case in point? Religion says to science prove faith wrong, when science has no way in heck of doing so. Science says to religion prove fact wrong, when religion has no way of doing so.
Stephen Jay Gould describes that, in Rock of Ages, I think, as "Non-Overlapping Magisterium," or NOMA.


Which is all well and good, until the religion side starts overlapping its way into the science classrooms of *our* schools, and passing pi = 3 laws, and such.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 08:51 PM
On 2002-01-25 15:13, Donnie B. wrote:
Which is all well and good, until the religion side starts overlapping its way into the science classrooms of *our* schools, and passing pi = 3 laws, and such.
Our schools? Besides, I've seen just as much encroachment from the other side. Maybe not as successful, I dunno.

NottyImp
2002-Jan-30, 11:50 AM
I have no time at all for Astrology of any kind (in the modern context), but I did see a couple of years ago a report which claimed that pretty much all statistical correlations between astrology and fact were zero except for one. This was (I think), the relation between high-flying career types and "Mars being in the ascendent" for those people's birth charts (or something like that). It was said that the correlation was statistically significant when the usual tests were applied.
Anyone else heard of this?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 11:57 AM
On 2002-01-30 06:50, NottyImp wrote:
This was (I think), the relation between high-flying career types and "Mars being in the ascendent" for those people's birth charts (or something like that). It was said that the correlation was statistically significant when the usual tests were applied.
Anyone else heard of this?

You're probably talking about the Gauquelin (http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html) study, which the OP mentioned.

2002-Jan-30, 12:54 PM
<a name="20020130d"> page 20020130d
On 2002-01-30 06:57, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 6:20 A.M.


On 2002-01-30 06:50, NottyImp wrote:
1: I guess my point would be
2: doing coin toss STATISTICS
3: HOW MANY TIMES [%] does the coin stay in orbit
You're probably talking about the Gauquelin (http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html) study, which the OP mentioned.

4: or just vanish {um beBum a "Lull at 1st 1/4"} Hu?

NottyImp
2002-Jan-30, 01:08 PM
Thanks for that, Grapes. Interesting stuff, although a statistical sampling nightmare by the look of it. The report I read was in the mainstream press somewhere, and did not de-bunk the effect as I recall.

It is amazing, though, that nearly fifty years of debate and effort have gone into such an abstruse area of study though.

Another Phobos
2002-Jan-31, 01:23 PM
Some statistical studies on astrology...
http://www.skepsis.no/english/subject/astrology/studies.html

lpetrich
2002-Feb-01, 12:17 AM
Thanx, Additional Phobos.

I read all the summaries, and only one of them reported any significant correlation -- and that one could be ascribed to a self-fulfilling-prophecy effect.

I think that such findings deserve a LOT of publicity, no matter how much doing so makes skeptics like myself seem like party-poopers.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-01, 01:53 PM
Thanks Cpt (erm Kpt) K.

Seredepity is the master word for us chimps and humans.

Still for the stars to think us som important as to align themselves for our benefit.... or for us to use whatever alignment is available, goes to geocentric thinking (no offense intended, we lose all the body cues, non-verbal abilities whilst typing). The world ain't flat, and not only Magellen proved that, but all these intercontinenal flights helped to. Sorry for believers in that (my faith says quash no other faith, lest your won be quashed by others) Live and let live,that kinda thing.

Mespo_Man
2002-Feb-01, 01:56 PM
My thanks to Michael E. Bakish who compiled this comparison list many, uh, moons ago.
He wrote...
*******************************

...I am posting this interesting list (which I have carefully typed up and carefully checked) from:
THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTELLATIONS
by Michael E. Bakich
==========
Sun signs -- the constellations of the zodiac

1. TRADITIONAL DATES
Aries - 21 Mar - 19 Apr (30 days)
Taurus - 20 Apr - 20 May (31 days)
Gemini - 21 May - 21 Jun - (32 days)
Cancer - 23 Jun - 22 Jul - (31 days)
Leo - 23 Jul - 22 Aug - (31 days)
Virgo - 23 Aug - 22 Sep - (31 days)
Libra - 23 Sep - 23 Oct - (31 days)
Scorpius - 24 Oct - 21 Nov - (29 days)
Sagittarius - 22 Nov - 21 Dec - (30 (days)
Capricornus - 22 Dec - 19 Jan - (29 (days)
Aquarius - 20 Jan -18 Feb - (30 (days)
Pisces - 19 Feb - 20 Mar - (30/31 days)

2. ACTUAL DATES
Pisces - 12 Mar - 18 Apr - (38 days)
Aries - 19 Apr - 13 May (25 days)
Taurus - 14 May - 19 Jun (37 days)
Gemini - 20 Jun - 20 Jul - (31 days)
Cancer - 21 Jul - 9 Aug - (20 days)
Leo - 10 Aug - 15 Sept - (37 days)
Virgo - 16 Sep - 30 Oct (45 days)
Libra - 31 Oct - 22 Nov - (23 days)
Scorpius - 23 Nov - 29 Nov - (7 days)
Ophiuchus - 30 Nov - 17 Dec - (18 days)
Sagittarius - 18 Dec - 18 Jan - (32 days)
Capricornus - 19 Jan - 15 Feb - (28 (days)
Aquarius - 16 Feb - 11 Mar - ( 24/25 days)
Note: 45 dates are in agreement with the traditional dates.
==========

I would be interested in an Astrologer's reaction to this list, since the Sun's location in the Zodiac is the basis for just about everything they predict. Notice the constellation between Scorpius and Sagittarius. How many Astrologers can even pronounce it?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-01, 04:02 PM
Those lists appear to be accurate, but the main reason for the discrepancy is the precession of the equinoxes, which is most apparent in Aries, where the traditional last day is the same as the actual first day.

But that sort of redefinition happens all the time, even in scientific circles. Everyone knows that the reason we have leap years is because the time it takes the Earth to go around the Sun is slightly less than 365 and a quarter days, right? But actually it is slightly more.

Come to think of it, that's why the astrological signs are screwed up too, ain't it?

ToSeek
2002-Feb-01, 04:26 PM
On 2002-02-01 11:02, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
But that sort of redefinition happens all the time, even in scientific circles. Everyone knows that the reason we have leap years is because the time it takes the Earth to go around the Sun is slightly less than 365 and a quarter days, right? But actually it is slightly more.

Come to think of it, that's why the astrological signs are screwed up too, ain't it?



Actually, we have leap years every fourth year because the time is almost exactly 365-1/4 days. We don't have leap years in mod 100 years (1800, 1900) except for mod 400 years (2000) because it is slightly less than 365-1/4 days. I think the figure to four significant digits is 365.2422.

I think the astrological signs skewing has to do with precession, which is a separate issue, else they would have gotten fixed with the conversion to the Gregorian calendar.


_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-02-01 11:28 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-01, 05:02 PM
On 2002-02-01 11:26, ToSeek wrote:
I think the figure to four significant digits is 365.2422.
The time it takes the Earth to go around the Sun is 365.2564 days, to four significant digits, which is about twenty minutes longer than your figure. That is exactly my point. Even we do it all the time.

Mespo_Man
2002-Feb-01, 05:48 PM
GrapesOfWrath and ToSeek:

I think you are being WAY to analytical. The astrologers of old percieved a very ordered cosmos. Take the whole sky and divide by 12. Assign signs to each of the areas and burn as heretics anyone who disputes the royal findings. Simple, direct and lethal.

Today's astrologers are students of the P.T. Barnum school marketing ("There's a sucker born every minute"). They COUNT on people being too lazy, indifferent or stupid to investigate the truth for themselves. And when cornered, they'll say "This is how it COULD be, not how it WILL be."

During WWII, Hitler had an astrologer on staff, so Churchill had to counter with one of his own. Nevertheless, Churchill was furious that he had to waste soo much time trying to figure out what the star chart reader was telling Hitler.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-01, 05:54 PM
On 2002-02-01 12:48, Mespo_Man wrote:
I think you are being WAY to analytical.
You may be on the wrong board, raig. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2002-Feb-01, 06:06 PM
Okay, you made me do some research!

The tropical year (http://www.bartleby.com/65/tr/tropyear.html) is what we conventionally think of as a year, which is what times the seasons, i.e., the time between one spring equinox and the next (or summer solstice, etc.) It's 365.2422 days, or 365 days, 5 hr, 48 min, 46 sec, and it's the basis for the leap years and whether we have them or not.

The sidereal year (http://www.bartleby.com/65/si/sidrlyr.html) is what you're talking about, and it's 365 days, 6 hr, 9 min, 9.5 sec, or the 365.2564 you mentioned. I don't think it has anything to do with leap years and such, though the difference between the sidereal year and the tropical year explains (or maybe just "is") the precession of the equinoxes. (http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/precequi.html)

There's also an anomalistic year (http://www.bartleby.com/65/an/anomalis.html), which is the time between perihelions, and that's 365 days, 6 hr, 13 min, 53.0 sec, or 365.2596 days.

The USNO has more to say (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html) on the matter.



_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-02-01 13:07 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-01, 06:24 PM
GoW:
I think you need to recheck your numbers.
1) 365.2422 is the number that I remember, too.
2) Using 365.2422, after 100 years, one winds up 0.78 days (18 hours, 43 minutes, 12 seconds) too long. So, on the century, you don't add a leap day. After four centuries, you wind up 0.88 days short, so you do add a leap day.
3) Using 365.2564, after a century, you are STILL 0.64 days (15 hours, 21 minutes, 36 seconds) short and if anything, would have to add a second leap day to get back to close to being in sync.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-01, 06:31 PM
On 2002-02-01 13:24, Kaptain K wrote:
I think you need to recheck your numbers.
I would, but ToSeek did it for me. :)

Turns out I was right, huh?

The sidereal year is how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun. The reason we use a tropical year is because we like to have things (winter, spring, summer, fall) occur at the same time every year. Satisfies the bookkeepers. Astrologers do the same thing, and I don't think we should begrudge them that.

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-01, 06:52 PM
Huh, yourself. Solar time is how we keep time. If civil time followed sidereal time, noon would occur when the sun was at culminnation on one date and six months later would occur in the middle of the night. Sidereal time is useful to astronomers, in that it is (in essence) an offset from the Vernal equinox, but is totally irrelevent to non-astronomers.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-01, 07:02 PM
On 2002-02-01 13:31, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
The reason we use a tropical year is because we like to have things (winter, spring, summer, fall) occur at the same time every year. Satisfies the bookkeepers.

And the farmers, which is kind of important.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-01, 08:06 PM
On 2002-02-01 13:52, Kaptain K wrote:
Huh, yourself. Solar time is how we keep time.
Still, the question was about "how long it takes the Earth to go around the Sun." Your figure is wrong, by twenty minutes. It is the precessions fault, as ToSeek says.


If civil time followed sidereal time, noon would occur when the sun was at culminnation on one date and six months later would occur in the middle of the night.
The astrologers have the same excuse, don't you think? Otherwise, Aquarius would be landing in summer. As others have noted, the astrological scorpio is not the same thing as the astronomical scorpius.


Sidereal time is useful to astronomers, in that it is (in essence) an offset from the Vernal equinox, but is totally irrelevent to non-astronomers.
[James Earl Jones voice]This...is B A B B[/James Earl Jones voice].

2002-Feb-02, 02:11 PM
<a name="Zodiac,Signs"> page Zodiac,Signs
On 2002-02-01 08:56, Mespo_Man wrote: To: 7 CHICCHAN 3 PAX
My thanks to Michael E. Bakish who compiled this comparison list many, uh, moons ago. | | yeah?
He wrote..................................|o| align right
*******************************...........| | 7:25 A.M.
123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 12|
...I am posting this interesting list (which I have carefully typed up and carefully checked) from:
THE CAMBRIDGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTELLATIONS (43?
by Michael E. Bakich......................|o| rule?
==========................................| | RULE 43?
Sun signs -- the constellations of the zodiac
123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 12|
1. TRADITIONAL DATES......................|o| Whose Trad
Aries - 21 Mar - 19 Apr (30 days).........| | The Ram Boo #1
Taurus - 20 Apr - 20 May (31 days)........|0| Bull #2
Gemini - 21 May - 21 Jun - (32 days)......| | kind of kinky
Cancer - 23 Jun - 22 Jul - (31 days)......|o| the crab
Leo - 23 Jul - 22 Aug - (31 days).........| | Lion?
Virgo - 23 Aug - 22 Sep - (31 days).......( ) tilt
Libra - 23 Sep - 23 Oct - (31 days).......| | hmm?
Scorpius - 24 Oct - 21 Nov - (29 days)....|o|
Sagittarius - 22 Nov - 21 Dec - (30 (days)| | Archer who?
Capricornus - 22 Dec - 19 Jan - (29 (days)| | Capricorn?
Aquarius - 20 Jan -18 Feb - (30 (days)...| | yeahhhhh Aquarians
Pisces - 19 Feb - 20 Mar - (30/31 days)..|o| i always knew
ther was something fishey about all of this
2. ACTUAL DATES........................| Absolute Positivism
Pisces - 12 Mar - 18 Apr - (38 days)...| was this
Aries - 19 Apr - 13 May (25 days)......| Gregorian
Taurus - 14 May - 19 Jun (37 days).....| or some other
Gemini - 20 Jun - 20 Jul - (31 days)...| positivist idea
Cancer - 21 Jul - 9 Aug - (20 days)....| I dont even
Leo - 10 Aug - 15 Sept - (37 days).....| recall who
Virgo - 16 Sep - 30 Oct (45 days)......|
Libra - 31 Oct - 22 Nov - (23 days)....| maybe these numbers
Scorpius - 23 Nov - 29 Nov - (7 days) .| are roman
Ophiuchus - 30 Nov - 17 Dec - (18 days)| was Greg pious?
Sagittarius - 18 Dec - 18 Jan - (32 days)
Capricornus - 19 Jan - 15 Feb - (28 (days) not that I care
Aquarius - 16 Feb - 11 Mar - ( 24/25 days) and besides i thought
Note: 45 dates are in agreement with the traditional dates.| Feb had 29 days

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-02-06 05:25 ]</font>

2002-Feb-02, 02:17 PM
<a name="20020202.7:42"> page 20020202.7:42
On 2002-02-01 11:02, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To? 7:41 A.M.PST
1:set par
2:set term dumb
3:set size .4,.5
4:plot cos(t), sin(t)
5: ok I think the main point HERE
6: was to set at a DUMB terminal
7: by that I mean on that does not talk back
8: when you say OK dummie? draw a circle

2002-Feb-05, 02:14 AM
[quote]
On 2002-02-02 09:17, HUb' wrote: To: 7:40 P.M.
<a name="20020204.7:41"> page 20020204.7:41 aka two days later
On 2002-02-01 11:02, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To? 7:41 A.M.PST Manley Hubbell 7:41 P.M.& 7:42 P.M.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=494&forum=2&4
PREDICTION:
there will be more post to that thread in
the next two days

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-05, 07:51 PM
On 2002-02-04 21:14, HUb' wrote:
Manley Hubbell
You da man



PREDICTION:
there will be more post to that thread in
the next two days

That's the Tell NASA what you want thread? ljbrs is the last poster.

<font size=-1>[Fixed quotation]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-02-05 14:53 ]</font>

2002-Feb-06, 10:50 AM
<a name="20020206.4:12"> page 20020206.4:12
On 2002-02-05 14:51, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 4:13 A.M.


On 2002-02-04 21:14, HUb' wrote: 1:
Manley Hubbell2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
ljbrs is the last poster.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=494&forum=2&6#20020206.4:00
{------------------------1st part-----------------------------------?--ToFoSt---# & page
still in progress as its difficult doing the alignments on line
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-02-05 14:53 ]</font>
4:19 A.M.