but i have this friend who posted a libra horoscope on facebook and apparently things are about to start looking up. not that i would ever admit to BELIEVING in horoscopes but must i remind you what douglas adams wrote in mostly harmless? speaking as the astrologer gail andrews? luckily i marked it:
“i know astrology isn’t a science,” said Gail. “of course it isn’t. it’s just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or–what’s that strange thing you british play?”
“er, cricket? self-loathing?”
“parliamentary democracy. the rules just kind of got there. they don’t make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. but when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. in astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. it’s just sort of a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of the problem begin to emerge. the more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. it’s like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that’s now been taken away and hidden. the graphite’s not important. it’s just the means of revealing their indentations. so you see, astrology’s nothing to do with astronomy. it’s just to do with people thinking about people.”
(that’s on page 649-650 of my complete hitchhiker’s guide which should clearly sit next to the bible.)
anyway, i’ve watched a lot of law and order: ci which is satisfying because the smart guy always gets the criminal. it’s just about finding the secret, their deep psychological issue, and then: crime solved!
too bad there isn’t just one answer to anything. too bad i am being so vague. i might as well be a middle schooler writing love poems. oh well. mercury or something and i am about to win at life.