You should probably read up on the history of astronomy. The precision of equinoxes was known to man for several millennia now. And most of those men were doing astrology at the time, because it became Astronomy much later. Oh, they also did a lot of maths in the process advancing that field also.

What I am talking about is that in your article you are committing the same fallacy as the writers of daily horoscopes. That is you have no idea about how the systems used in astrology work (if they are fairy tales, or not is beside the point of my comment), which is the same as with writers of those columns you are critiquing!
That is really an excellent way to be "scientific". ;-) My post was to urge you to take a gander at those systems, since well. Most common models of the celestial sphere in use today were made by astrologers between some centuries BC (5-2 or so) and 17th century or so.

I am not arguing with your points, that is why I skipped over them. Oh, perhaps I do. That is: people who write daily horoscopes have nothing to do with astrlology, there aren't 12 human characters (I know that your point was in jest so what is there to argue about?), and etc. Since there is nothing to argue about and I didn't please tell me how it is scientific or not scientific? Especially if we are talking about astrology, wich is not a science.

My point is, since being scientific is so important for you, why are you not holding yourself to a higher standard, and are operating on the same level as the people you are critiquing?