Over the past twenty years I have done many readings for people who did not believe in astrology but were willing to have an open mind. These people all left feeling that they came away with something positive. I am not going to alter my claim because of one person who didn't cooperate in the process in the first place, and now wants to make a battle royal over it.She didn't delete the offending statement, but she did change it to read, "rarely have I seen a skeptic who was not convinced..." (bolding applied to highlight the change). As minor and inconsequential a change that is on her site, it is all I was asking for.
I will, however, cease offering the Skeptics Challenge and I will gladly delete that sentence on my site. I realized through this process that I have never done a reading for someone who is not open at all to the possibility that astrology can work. The skeptics that I have read for have been primarily spouses of clients and they have had a degree of openness because of their association through their spouse.
I must say, I was amused by her response. She complains that I "didn't cooperate in the process." Not sure what that means. I asked her to provide a reading for me as per the terms of her own skeptical challenge. She did so. I was unimpressed, and said so. Is she upset that I aired the results in a public forum rather than e-mailing her privately where she could attempt to spin the results, and convince me she was more accurate than she really was? Sorry, Lynn, but I am quite familiar with the cold reading tactics psychics and astrologers use to fish for additional information and then use that information to attempt to turn a miss into a hit in the minds of their subjects.
Right from the beginning, Lynn started to back pedal. After I first wrote about her reading of me, she claimed that it might not be as accurate as possible because she had only done a "mini reading." Is that my fault? If she could have elaborated, provided more information that might have been more convincing, why didn't she? The only failing here is hers.
I am now satisfied that we can put this discussion to bed. By the terms of her own challenge, Lynn failed to support her claim - that her reading could convince a skeptic of the validity of astrology. She declined to take me up on my challenge, to see if people could choose their own reading from among three presented to them, which was based upon Lynn's own claim that astrology is "uncannily accurate." She declined to even comment on it, or two other potential tests I outlined in the comments section of her blog.
There is nowhere else to take this discussion. I am not going to convice her, and she is not going to convince me, and I knew that going in. Why do it, then? Because the goal of skepticism is simply to shine the light of reason into the dark corners in which claims of the paranormal huddle, and let the public see them for what they truly are. If one person reads this, and has a moment of realisation about how astrologers practise their art, it has all been worth it.