Right but the question I was responding to was if the whole thing was Design Astrology. This question alone is open to interpretation let alone The fifteen fundamental properties which is the topic of the blog post.

I tried to answer the question the best I could best on my design education which does include Christopher Alexander. I answered based on the context of the question and the level of that the questioner seemed to approach the topic.

I would think a well reasoned critique of my answer would include my errors and how they misled the questioner.

I still think my answer is fine despite not having read the original 4 volume source of the 15 properties that the blog post referenced.

If you would like to explain how this language is not Design Astrology I'm sure it would be more interesting than harping on other answers.

I see that you like long answers and that is fine. Some people like short answers that get to the point.

I guess I was trying to keep the conversation at the same scale:)