So, Ray, once again I offer you the opportunity to explain in clear language what the 'ending date' is based on. I know it is not based on a solstice, but you are the one who raised the issue in this discussion in this post, where you said:

The "galactic alignment", which I was the first to clearly discuss (1987, 1991) involves the position of the Sun at the solstices aligning with the galactic plane/equator [1998-2001 (Sept 2001, the time of the 9:11)]. One of several astrological factors that point to 2012 as highly significant. (emphasis added)

So, pardon me very much for taking you at your word. Perhaps you'd like to modify what you said?

People who believe what [AstroGeek writes] must be really stupid.

Perhaps so. But we're not too stupid to understand something he told you earlier:

edit: Once again I have to clean up one of your posts. Please try to remember that this site is being read by kids as well as adults. Do you talk to your own children this way?

I'm sure you wouldn't want any parents out there to deprive their children of your life-saving revelations because of your language. So why not write your posts with as much profanity as you wish, then spend a few minutes self-editing them before submitting them?

_{Edit by Astrogeek: I know this is difficult for you to understand, Ray, but kids read this site. Disagree with us as much as you want, but please, keep it G-Rated}

http://www.december212012.com/download/2012/FOX_Solar_Storms.htm

Or, it was just another long day at work. Never post with a fried brain…right Ray? Oh, wait….forgot who i was asking.

You are completely correct in this. Guilty as charged. I do not allow myself to believe wild, ungrounded, completely speculative theories that aren't backed up with a single shred of real evidence.

If you can construct a hypothesis that explains astrology in terms of what we already know to be true about physics, then you'll get some traction. Bonus points for proposing an experiment to test your hypothesis.

The entire list is pretty short: gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. Those last two function only over an extremely short distance- less than the diameter of most atomic nuclei. The first two act over long distances, but are subject to the inverse-square law.

Can you explain astrology in terms of the functioning of those two forces?

What is your evidence for making such an assertion, sir? What is your basis for making this claim?

I couldn't resist this one, since Astrogeek is such a f***-up.

_{(Edit: Once again, Ray, keep it clean. This site is read by children.)}

Makin' sure though that you read this about "satire".

Wiki has this (emphasis is mine): "Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form … In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are censured by ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent of improvement."

One more time:
"Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form … In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are censured by ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent of improvement."

The original on-line version of "Let's Get Stupid About 2012" is here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=470501034&blogId=485788843

I'll see to it that the footnote is updated.

You really should put up the complete Hoopes quote there, Bill. Scared of the truth?

Not at all, which is why I referenced the original story. I also had a very pleasant email exchange with Hoopes and a few other people regarding this page. Some very interesting stuff.

You could be more respectful of the fact that the most knowledgeable person about 2012 and the Maya calendar …

I'm sure glad you don't let that artificially inflate your ego.

… has taken the time to help you not be such a f***-up on your web site.

I wonder if your hullabaloo about what you think we should do on our website (not mine, since there are several authors) doesn't also have to do with the fact that the above page is now showing up on the first page of results for a google search on your name? By the way, I'm sure the vigorous commentary you have provided here has aided that effect. Thank you.

However, some of my co-authors are now suggesting that I'm spending too much of my time and energy on you, rather than exposing the other charlatans. I tend to agree with them.

The grace period may be over.

Hm… there appears to be an implied threat here. The grace period of what, I wonder?

What I have to say about 2012 in my own words can be found here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=470501034&blogId=51581447

Read it, thank you. I have had a long day and needed a good laugh.

Wiki has this (emphasis is mine): "Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form … In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are censured by ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent of improvement."

Bill. Bill. AstroGeek … Pay attention here! SATIRE. SATIRE. SATIRE.

My SATIRE on 2012 is here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=470501034&blogId=485788843

PG-13 Version is here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=470501034&blogId=530744397

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The PG-13 version is below it, if you want to link that up also. What you have linked now is more of the same kind of s*** by someone other than myself that you seem to prefer. If this was a class assignment, I'd give you a "D".

You really should put up the complete Hoopes quote there, Bill. Scared of the truth? You could be more respectful of the fact that the most knowledgeable person about 2012 and the Maya calendar has taken the time to help you not be such a f****-up on your web site. The grace period may be over.

What I have to say about 2012 in my own words can be found here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=470501034&blogId=515814471

You are not channeling Jenkins. You are being used by the same "dark" entities.

_{(edit: Once again I have to clean up one of your posts. Please try to remember that this site is being read by kids as well as adults. Do you talk to your own children this way?)}

Contrary to what this page states, naturally, it is still on the web, Google: Let's Get Stupid About 2012.

Actually, I believe that I said that it is still on the web, but that the original is gone. Do try to keep up.

It even quotes Jenkins, for Christ's sake, without credit (vitriol?)

Of course, only Jenkins would use a word like 'vitriol'. I'll make sure I never use it again, just to keep you happy, Ray.

Hey, maybe I'm actually Jenkins? Or maybe I'm channeling Jenkins! Yeah! Then I can still use 'vitriol'. Cool! Maybe next time I'll use 'zephyr' and 'alliteration' too. I like those words as well.