Kayt Turner: 'Who could believe they share the same characteristics as one 12th of the population'

Published on Thursday 24 June 2010 14:00

WHAT star sign are you?' asks a colleague who has her nose buried in the paper. Catching sight of my expression, she then says: "Actually, no - let me guess. I would say that you're the kind of person who never does anything half-heartedly - so, maybe an Aries?"

I shake my head at her. "You saying I'm a sheep?"

"Mmm. Well maybe I'm being thrown off a little here. Take that trait and add it to your curiosity and I would say, Gemini?"

I glare at her rather pointedly. "You calling me two-faced?"

"Oh, no, no, no - not at all." She hurriedly backs down. "I just meant…" At which point she kind of tails off.

"Don't worry," I assure her. "I'm not in the least offended. It's all just hippy-dippy mumbo jumbo crap as far as I'm concerned. There's not one iota of truth in any of it. It's an entire industry devoted to gullible eejits like you."

Okay, I admit, I'm on a roll now and not about to shut up for anyone's hurt feelings.

I mean, horoscopes? For real? Star signs? Moons in Uranus and all that guff? All of which was completely - as far as I'm concerned - disproved last week by Parke Kunkle (a made-up name if ever there was one). He is a professor of astronomy (that's the proper science of stars'n'stuff guys - not the made-up nonsense that you're reading out). He let it be known that the stars (again, that's the actual ones in the sky) are in a different position now than when the young Jonathan Cainer drew up the first astrology chart some two thousand years ago. This also means that there would be an additional "sign" called Ophiuchus, which would slot in between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Of course, this would only apply to the northern hemisphere population. Because, surely, our antipodean cousins see a different sky.

National treasure, knitwear botherer and astrologer Russell Grant is undeterred. He claims the zodiac is fixed and immovable, regardless of what Professor Kunkle says. He even goes so far as to say it's based on equinoxes (equinoxii?), not constellations.

So, let me just get this right. The stars aren't based on stars then Russell? You guys truly do just make it up as you go along.

As if we needed any more proof that the whole thing is, like history, bunkum, who in their right mind could ever believe that they share exactly the same characteristics as one 12th of the world's population? And I'm not even going to touch on the nutters who get astrological charts done for their pets.

Just because you - and Rover - were born on the same day as a billion others, it cannot possibly mean that you will all be neat freaks to whom every penny is a prisoner. It's not at all credible that you would all have the same lucky colours and numbers. If that were the case, then my personality traits - and wardrobe - would be the same as those of Bela Lugosi, Snoop Dog and Tom Petty. Yeah, yeah, as opposed to just having their looks.

I think I've managed to beat my colleague into submission with a plethora of facts and science. Until she looks directly at me and says, "Aha. Got it. Taurus. They're always the most sceptical about astrology."