NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe they actually do tell you something about the person?

I'm asking because I did some maths yesterday, and it was surprising what I found:

I'm a Leo myself. Of all the relationships I had in the past, 70% were with Sagittarius. Not only that, but my two closest female friends are Sagittarius as well... the ratio seems a bit high for pure coincidence, doesn't it?

I also remembered one instance when I was still active with a Catholic youth group in Germany. We were on an outing with about 50 kids of different ages (from 9 to 17) and asked everybody what star sign they were. It turned out that more than half of the group was Pisces...

Ive heard a bit.

Most of it seems to be mildly coincidental, and little more.

Often, we put more value on such things than they actually tend to warrant.

Me..Im a Virgo.

Little of what a traditional virgo is supposed to be like, actually applies to me.

Hmm I don't believe those horoscopes you find in papers...I wouldn't ring up a horoscope hotline expecting to be told anything useful as I believe if you change your mind one minute, the rest of your life could be affected. I don't believe your life is mapped out for you.

But things like... I'm a Libra and as I understand it we are creative. I am extremely creative...I dont find that to be a coincidence. Personality traits tend to match up pretty well.

Ive heard a bit.

Most of it seems to be mildly coincidental, and little more.

Often, we put more value on such things than they actually tend to warrant.

Me..Im a Virgo.

Little of what a traditional virgo is supposed to be like, actually applies to me.

Used to be the same for me... I would read the descriptions of Leo and couldn't apply any of it to me. But in recent years, I find the descriptions more and more accurate. I would rule out that I have changed to accomodate the general description of a Leo, though.

Hmm I don't believe those horoscopes you find in papers...I wouldn't ring up a horoscope hotline expecting to be told anything useful as I believe if you change your mind one minute, the rest of your life could be affected. I don't believe your life is mapped out for you.

But things like... I'm a Libra and as I understand it we are creative. I am extremely creative...I dont find that to be a coincidence. Personality traits tend to match up pretty well.


If you took 12 art students, and only one was a Libra, wouldnt that be 1/12?

Wouldnt that be completely uncoincidental?

Used to be the same for me... I would read the descriptions of Leo and couldn't apply any of it to me. But in recent years, I find the descriptions more and more accurate. I would rule out that I have changed to accomodate the general description of a Leo, though.


But couldnt it be that right now, you HAPPEN to fit the stereotype of a Leo, especially if you didnt before?

If you took 12 art students, and only one was a Libra, wouldnt that be 1/12?

Wouldnt that be completely uncoincidental?

I know exactly one art student in real life, and she's Libra... ;)

If you took 12 art students, and only one was a Libra, wouldnt that be 1/12?

Wouldnt that be completely uncoincidental?
I'm not saying all art students are libras. You have a good point. But when I've read stuff about my star sign some of it does seem to match. I realise its normally quite general. But not all signs are creative...and that seems to be my thing, always has been.

It's ridiculous. Absolute crap. Utter bullshit.

But couldnt it be that right now, you HAPPEN to fit the stereotype of a Leo, especially if you didnt before?

Possible.
Given my past, though, I would say I spent a lot of time fighting to become who I am right now.

I'm not going to say that everything has to be true about star signs, and if something happens to be true about it I for one don't have any explanation for that. I'm just saying that some of my observations made me wonder...


Btw, I've been working under two head librarians in my life. Both female, both Leos, both fitting the stereotypical image perfectly ;)

I guess maybe Im looking at it like a "cold reading".

A few general conclusions, and people tend to attach themselves to it.

Like John Edwards, only on paper.

Me, Im a virgo...
But, Im a ( not professional) musician.
Wouldnt a Libra be more suitable for me?

I know...someone (cough*Cabra*cough) should find a few general traits for each of the signs, and when people view this thread, they can see if any of the "typical" attributes applies to them.

<---Wile E Coyote...suuuuper geeeenius.

I'm not saying all art students are libras. You have a good point. But when I've read stuff about my star sign some of it does seem to match.
That's 'cause horoscopes are vague and open to interpretation. In studies asking people to read horoscopes and say how well they match, the majority of people say the horoscopes match well, even if the experimenters have swapped round the horoscopes for different star signs.

I know...someone (cough*Cabra*cough) should find a few general traits for each of the signs, and when people view this thread, they can see if any of the "typical" attributes applies to them.

<---Wile E Coyote...suuuuper geeeenius.


Ok, ok.... on my way looking for some :p

But have you noticed all the people who didn't act as their starsign should dictate?

(I don't even know what the stereotypes are. I'm a Gemini, which I'm sure is very nice.)

Ok, ok.... on my way looking for some :p


Oh...Good idea!

*hmm...that was easy*

How about some brownies?

That's 'cause horoscopes are vague and open to interpretation. In studies asking people to read horoscopes and say how well they match, the majority of people say the horoscopes match well, even if the experimenters have swapped round the horoscopes for different star signs.
Yes I realise that!

...who actually derived horoscopes? Someone must have written them down once upon a time? Wonder where they came from.

I know...someone (cough*Cabra*cough) should find a few general traits for each of the signs, and when people view this thread, they can see if any of the "typical" attributes applies to them.
A better method would be to get a list of traits for each sign, but label them A, B, C etc. Everyone decides which they're closest to, and after that which traits go with which sign is revealed.

It's not perfectly unbiased (people can choose the traits they'd like, rather than the ones they have), but it means people can't deliberately choose their own sign. Without a quick Google, anyway.

Yes I realise that!

...who actually derived horoscopes? Someone must have written them down once upon a time? Wonder where they came from.


Im thinking "the Greeks".

Seeing as how they are all constellations.

Virgo..
Leo..
Gemini..
Taurus...etc..

It's ridiculous. Absolute crap. Utter bullshit.
Indeed. Astrology isn't even internally consistent. Ask an astrologer why there are twelve star signs, and they'll tell you it's because there are twelve constellations on the ecliptic/zodiac; the problem for them is that actually there are actually 13 constellations on the ecliptic, but astrologers ignore the star sign Ophiuchus.

A better method would be to get a list of traits for each sign, but label them A, B, C etc. Everyone decides which they're closest to, and after that which traits go with which sign is revealed.

It's not perfectly unbiased (people can choose the traits they'd like, rather than the ones they have), but it means people can't deliberately choose their own sign. Without a quick Google, anyway.


Oh, like a blind Pepsi Challenge.

You pick the set of attributes you feel are closest to you, and then see wich starsign you picked.

Interesting, but how do you insure honesty in the veiwer?

Interesting, but how do you insure honesty in the veiwer?
I don't think you can, reliably. Sadly, something well known like this means that it's easy to research what your desired traits should be, and people who take them seriously are likely to already know what they are.

I suppose you could get somebody else to decide which set of traits you most closely match, removing your own opinion of yourself from the equation, but that's still not perfect as it's quite hard to be perfectly objective even if you're not trying to adversely affect the results.

But have you noticed all the people who didn't act as their starsign should dictate?

(I don't even know what the stereotypes are. I'm a Gemini, which I'm sure is very nice.)

I don't assume star signs "dictate" anything. I don't think that people behave the way they do because they know their star sign demands it ;)

I wouldn't even go around saying that all Leos love to be the center of attention, that all Sagittariuses are adventurous, all Pisces are spiritual or that all Tauruses dislike change. I'd just say that it's possible that these characteristics may appear more often with one star sign than the other...

I don't assume star signs "dictate" anything. I don't think that people behave the way they do because they know their star sign demands it ;)

I wouldn't even go around saying that all Leos love to be the center of attention, that all Sagittariuses are adventurous, all Pisces are spiritual or that all Tauruses dislike change. I'd just say that it's possible that these characteristics may appear more often with one star sign than the other...


THAT..I may be willing to concede.
In other words..it believe it MAY be SLIGHTLY more than coincidence.

Im thinking "the Greeks".

Seeing as how they are all constellations.

Virgo..
Leo..
Gemini..
Taurus...etc..

Erm... that' Latin, hon. And I think it was actually the Babylonians who first came up with the 12 star signs.

Ive heard a bit.

Most of it seems to be mildly coincidental, and little more.

Often, we put more value on such things than they actually tend to warrant.

Me..Im a Virgo.

Little of what a traditional virgo is supposed to be like, actually applies to me.
I'm technically a Capricorn, but I feel more like a mutt. I've got various traits from all of the signs, so either that has to do with various star signs, or they don't work quite as astrologers think.

If you took 12 art students, and only one was a Libra, wouldnt that be 1/12?

Wouldnt that be completely uncoincidental?
Art students? What sort of art?o.O

Im an Aries. I fit a lot of the sterotypical traits. What is annoying though is the horoscopes in newspapers. They say the same stuff pretty much although they use different words. Also that it is pretty much a 50% chance of being correct.

I fit a lot of the Leo characteristics, but aside from that...well generally the daily horoscopes are just incredibly wrong. I think astrology is more a way of making people regularly re-examine their lives than anything else.

I fit a lot of the Leo characteristics, but aside from that...well generally the daily horoscopes are just incredibly wrong. I think astrology is more a way of making people regularly re-examine their lives than anything else.
Whatever gets the masses to start.

Usually I'm utterly utterly sceptical. And I still am, actually.
But there's a book our family has that splits people up into 36 types, rather than 12, with long detailed descriptions of various things about their character. And in every single case, it does seem to fit the person. We know three Aries who are utterly different... but they each fit into a sub-category of the Aries in this book.

I find it hard to believe, but it really is freaky.

If stuff like that was totally random, you'd be able to read any description and make it fit, or they'd have equal standing. But these descriptions are very distinctive, and have always been true in our experience. So, however much I hate to admit it, there must be something to these kind of theories (though I tend to edge away from the meaingless crap you find everyday - "you will meet someone new and interesting next week" ).

My one, I'd never use to change how I am or anything, or live my life according to it. But it did actually help me understand a hell of a lot about myself, and that can't be bad.

Usually I'm utterly utterly sceptical. And I still am, actually.
But there's a book our family has that splits people up into 36 types, rather than 12, with long detailed descriptions of various things about their character. And in every single case, it does seem to fit the person. We know three Aries who are utterly different... but they each fit into a sub-category of the Aries in this book.

I find it hard to believe, but it really is freaky.

If stuff like that was totally random, you'd be able to read any description and make it fit, or they'd have equal standing. But these descriptions are very distinctive, and have always been true in our experience. So, however much I hate to admit it, there must be something to these kind of theories (though I tend to edge away from the meaingless crap you find everyday - "you will meet someone new and interesting next week" ).

My one, I'd never use to change how I am or anything, or live my life according to it. But it did actually help me understand a hell of a lot about myself, and that can't be bad.
Curious. I've found multiple bits that all seemed to apply, but never found any one description to fit perfectly. Now I'm curious about this book.

I'm a libra and the characterisitic of being creative applies strongly to me. I waste whole afternoons just drawing or writing stories/songs/poems...but it could be just coincidence

I'm a libra and the characterisitic of being creative applies strongly to me. I waste whole afternoons just drawing or writing stories/songs/poems...but it could be just coincidence
I'm a Capricorn and I do a fair bit of writing when I'm not too lazy, so it could be more coincidental....or just a factor, not a definite tell-all.

Erm... that' Latin, hon. And I think it was actually the Babylonians who first came up with the 12 star signs.


Well if it was Latin, wouldnt that make it Roman?
If it was Roman, wouldnt it be a good chance they stole it from the Greeks?

As for the Babylonians..that actually might make sense.

Well if it was Latin, wouldnt that make it Roman?
If it was Roman, wouldnt it be a good chance they stole it from the Greeks?

As for the Babylonians..that actually might make sense.
Maybe, but the Romans tended to improve upon everything they "stole."

That's 'cause horoscopes are vague and open to interpretation. In studies asking people to read horoscopes and say how well they match, the majority of people say the horoscopes match well, even if the experimenters have swapped round the horoscopes for different star signs.

That is complete bullshit.

Allow me to show you an image of my actual horoscope at birth in one of the conventional chart forms with an included tabular form so that you might understand why what you stated above is complete bullshit.


http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/828/notbadhoroscope1yy6.jpg


That ^^^^^ is a horoscope. It consists of a mapping of the relative positions of fixed stars and planets at a given point in time and as seen from a given location in space. A horoscope is a map or even tabular information which basically describes or mimics a photograph of the sky that is taken at a time and place of interest. A persons birth for instance.

There is no way in hell that they could slip a horoscope from september under the nose of somebody who could read it and make them believe that it was a horoscope from May or January. Therefore...bullshit

That is complete bullshit.

Allow me to show you an image of my actual horoscope at birth in one of the conventional chart forms with an included tabular form so that you might understand why what you stated above is complete bullshit.

Sorry, I gotta side against you, here.

This is my "Love Horoscope" for tomorrow, sponsored by MSN.

Sun Sign
Virgo

You don't need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, nor do you need to use such strong means to bring about a resolution between you and your lover. Whilst you may feel that the situation merits tough love, it may be better to use a more gentle method, and even go out of your way to be extra kind. Don't make the conflict worse. Think about it.

Youre telling me this applies ONLY to me, or any other Virgo born on the same day as I?

Or maybe the above is pure drivel, meant to be loosely interpereted as I see fit, and equally as applicable to anyone who reads it?

That is complete bullshit.
Don't you just love polite debate? *sigh*

It consists of a mapping of the relative positions of fixed stars and planets at a given point in time and as seen from a given location in space.
So where's Ophiuchus, the 13th zodiacal constellation?

There is no way in hell that they could slip a horoscope from september under the nose of somebody who could read it and make them believe that it was a horoscope from May or January. Therefore...bullshit
And just how many people get their horoscope in that form? I'm talking about the form of horoscopes you find in newspapers: 'Gemini: while you find relationships under strain this week, remember that a change of perspective can make your similarities seem more important than your differences'.

Sorry, I gotta side against you, here.

This is my "Love Horoscope" for tomorrow, sponsored by MSN.



Youre telling me this applies ONLY to me, or any other Virgo born on the same day as I?

Or maybe the above is pure drivel, meant to be loosely interpereted as I see fit, and equally as applicable to anyone who reads it?
I think he's saying that stuff like that isn't actually a true horoscope.
A real horoscope is individual to your exact time and place of birth, making it much more accurate and totally unique.

I have read characteristics of my own star sign in books of baby names. I did have a lot of the characteristics that they suggested Aquarians to have, but I think it was just a random occurance.

I don't believe the rubbish you read in papers or magazines, but I'm not totally against the idea that it's possible for an astrologer to draw up a detailed personal chart that reflects personality, events etc. Certainly, I know that I am a very typical Scorpio. I'd rather not believe any of it, but I do have so many typical Scorpion traits that I wonder could it really be a coincidence.

Horoscopes are just ways for people to step back and reflect on their lives for a few seconds. The only purpose that signs serve is that it allows the reader an excuse to identify with the advice more. If you're going to read the horoscopes, read them all, pick the one you like the most and go with that one.

Do you believe they actually do tell you something about the person?

The only thing star signs will tell you is how much the person in question believes in star signs. Everything else is bunk.

The only thing star signs will tell you is how much the person in question believes in star signs. Everything else is bunk.
A glass of port?
*offers*

The only thing star signs will tell you is how much the person in question believes in star signs. Everything else is bunk.
I'm inclined to agree, but think a proper, large-scale, unbiased study should be carried out to find out for sure.

If it turns out to be coincidence then everybody can stop bothering with it and all the premium-rate horoscope lines can be shut down.

If it turns out to have basis in fact then wouldn't it be fascinating to know how the positions of planets millions to billions of miles (and stars umpteen lightyears) away can affect your day-to-day life?

This would be a lot more fun if we just tried to guess each other's star sign.
Then we told.

Any believer want to try to guess mine?

Fascist Dom, you're a ... a ... Scorpio!
And Bottle, a ... um ... Taurean. No, Aquarius.

I think he's saying that stuff like that isn't actually a true horoscope.
A real horoscope is individual to your exact time and place of birth, making it much more accurate and totally unique.
I've met two other people in my hometown that share my same birthday, one of them a girl who was born only an hour after I was born. How could we have unique horoscopes?

This would be a lot more fun if we just tried to guess each other's star sign.
Then we told.

Any believer want to try to guess mine?

Fascist Dom, you're a ... a ... Scorpio!
And Bottle, a ... um ... Taurean. No, Aquarius.
Not my sun sign. What makes you say that?

Do you believe they actually do tell you something about the person?

I'm asking because I did some maths yesterday, and it was surprising what I found:

I'm a Leo myself. Of all the relationships I had in the past, 70% were with Sagittarius. Not only that, but my two closest female friends are Sagittarius as well... the ratio seems a bit high for pure coincidence, doesn't it?

I also remembered one instance when I was still active with a Catholic youth group in Germany. We were on an outing with about 50 kids of different ages (from 9 to 17) and asked everybody what star sign they were. It turned out that more than half of the group was Pisces...
No, I don't believe that. As an astrologer, I cannot believe in that.

I think it's lovely you have statistics, though, and best of luck with them.

I've met two other people in my hometown that share my same birthday, one of them a girl who was born only an hour after I was born. How could we have unique horoscopes?

Well, the astrologers have got an out for that too. Your "rising sign" which changes every two hours. That girl doesn't necessarily have the same rising sign, therefore all sorts of things can be made more, or less significant in your charts.
My chart is an absolute horror. So I have very little incentive to believe in it, quite apart from thinking the whole thing is bunk.

Sane Outcasts: a capricorn. For sure.

It's ridiculous. Absolute crap. Utter bullshit.
Just so.

It's not the purpose of the starsigns or astrology to tell you who you are.

Fascist Dom, you're a ... a ... Scorpio!


I'd say he's Aries.

Well, the astrologers have got an out for that too. Your "rising sign" which changes every two hours. That girl doesn't necessarily have the same rising sign, therefore all sorts of things can be made more, or less significant in your charts.
My chart is an absolute horror. So I have very little incentive to believe in it, quite apart from thinking the whole thing is bunk.

Sane Outcasts: a capricorn. For sure.
I'm a water sign, yes, but not capricorn.

An hour difference in a "rising sign" can mean two entirely different lives, despite every other sign being identical? Interesting, though it sounds like a cop-out. I may try to look up a star chart for my birthday and see what it predicts.

Not my sun sign. What makes you say that?

You got a problem with guesswork?
I won't spoil the suspense. Guess mine, or if you prefer, that of someone you know better!
Come on, let's have some fun here :)

I'd say he's Aries.
Why Aries?

I'm a water sign, yes, but not capricorn.

An hour difference in a "rising sign" can mean two entirely different lives, despite every other sign being identical? Interesting, though it sounds like a cop-out. I may try to look up a star chart for my birthday and see what it predicts.

Personally, I think an hour difference in longitude is more likely to make that difference. I'm just saying the rising sign explains why people born on the same day have different "fates."
Help, I'm falling into the "Devil's Advocacy Hole" !

Water sign? So, I was wrong but guess one of the other two? You're giving hints!! Now I have a 50:50 of being right! Let's play this straight, huh?

I don't understand..

Why Aries?

I say (my second guess) Fasc Dominion is .... Leo!

I don't understand..

Guess people's star sign.
Unless they've told you.

It's a game. Guess a few. No-one's even tried mine yet (fine, I'm new.)
Go.

Why Aries?

I could quote one of those endless horoscope pages, but it's really just that you remind me most of the Aries I've know :)

Guess people's star sign.
Unless they've told you.

It's a game. Guess a few. No-one's even tried mine yet (fine, I'm new.)
Go.
Sagittarius?

Personally, I think an hour difference in longitude is more likely to make that difference. I'm just saying the rising sign explains why people born on the same day have different "fates."
Help, I'm falling into the "Devil's Advocacy Hole" !

Water sign? So, I was wrong but guess one of the other two? You're giving hints!! Now I have a 50:50 of being right! Let's play this straight, huh?
According to this free star chart site (http://www.alabe.com/freechart/), an hour's difference can be pretty big.

Alright, then, since a 50:50 chance is too much for you, I'm a cancer.

I'm a... wait, would anyone like to guess my sign?

I'm skeptical of horoscopes, but they're interesting nonetheless.

Sagittarius?

Me? No.
Il Ruffino: a Scorpio, too.
I'm just guessing, but properly speaking, that's a control. Let the astrologers show how they categorize more accurately.

Do you believe they actually do tell you something about the person?

I'm asking because I did some maths yesterday, and it was surprising what I found:

I'm a Leo myself. Of all the relationships I had in the past, 70% were with Sagittarius. Not only that, but my two closest female friends are Sagittarius as well... the ratio seems a bit high for pure coincidence, doesn't it?

I also remembered one instance when I was still active with a Catholic youth group in Germany. We were on an outing with about 50 kids of different ages (from 9 to 17) and asked everybody what star sign they were. It turned out that more than half of the group was Pisces...

I sometimes read monthly forecasts of this women. She did predict my breaking of my shoulder by saying "facing with a serious health issue."

www.astrologyzone.com

I'm a... wait, would anyone like to guess my sign?

I'm skeptical of horoscopes, but they're interesting nonetheless.

It's difficult enough with people you know, but almost impossible with people you don't know...

It's a bit like seeing a person drinking tea and guessing where he's from. It works better the other way round, if you're told a person is from England, you'll assume that he will drink a lot of tea ;)

I'm a... wait, would anyone like to guess my sign?

I'm skeptical of horoscopes, but they're interesting nonetheless.

On 85 posts, perhaps one of which I remember? No.
Hey, you're a Sag.

But have you noticed all the people who didn't act as their starsign should dictate?
Damn good thing, too. Otherwise, they'd be in charge, and not us.

Me? No.
Il Ruffino: a Scorpio, too.
I'm just guessing, but properly speaking, that's a control. Let the astrologers show how they categorize more accurately.
I r not such a Scorpio!

Sorry, it's early :p

A better method would be to get a list of traits for each sign, but label them A, B, C etc. Everyone decides which they're closest to, and after that which traits go with which sign is revealed.

It's not perfectly unbiased (people can choose the traits they'd like, rather than the ones they have), but it means people can't deliberately choose their own sign. Without a quick Google, anyway.
Actually, all the traits, A through Z, are in your chart already. No need to pick and choose.

It's difficult enough with people you know, but almost impossible with people you don't know...


True. I'm an Aquarius:)

Indeed. Astrology isn't even internally consistent. Ask an astrologer why there are twelve star signs, and they'll tell you it's because there are twelve constellations on the ecliptic/zodiac; the problem for them is that actually there are actually 13 constellations on the ecliptic, but astrologers ignore the star sign Ophiuchus.
Actually, there are much more than 13 constellations along the ecliptic. But... have you ever wondered why you thought there are only 13?

Therein lies your answer.

That is complete bullshit.

Allow me to show you an image of my actual horoscope at birth in one of the conventional chart forms with an included tabular form so that you might understand why what you stated above is complete bullshit.
Yay! Here's mine:
http://www.robertobaca.net/chart.GIF
I don't know what any of that means. Probably something along the lines of having power over who lives and who dies.

Actually, there are much more than 13 constellations along the ecliptic. But... have you ever wondered why you thought there are only 13?

Therein lies your answer.

Hell, if you look at the ecliptic, it's just a mess of stars.
The constellations are more or less a mnemonic, from the days when people told time by the stars.

You can take a kid down the back yard and show them the stars, and explain it by "see those three stars close together in a line? Yeah, those ones, where I'm pointing. That's Orion's sword, and that over there is his belt, and that <waving your arm like a crazy person> is his helmet ...." You're trying to tell the kid that everything up there is your knowledge, a human thing which is knowable, when a child's senses are telling them that it's a mindblowing thing, essentially random at that level of knowledge, yet immutable and ancient.

I understand how mankind is awed by the stars. There is hindu and chinese astrology too, essentially marked out by the big ol' moon, which rules them all from it's close station.

And our lives are big, scarey things too. Our own natures, our potentials, our futures, are essentially unknowable by any chart of the ancients, or even of our best scientific minds of today.

I say astrology should be tested. Astrologers, knowing another person as well as they can without knowing their birthday, should be invited to determine that person's star sign, their various astrological qualities, and then to guess their birthday. The internet, and in particular an impersonal and anonymous forum, seems the ideal tool to test this 'science.'

Bring it on. I am not a Saggitarius. 11 guesses left.
Il Ruffino is not a Scorpio. 11 guesses left. Leo?

Hell, if you look at the ecliptic, it's just a mess of stars.
The constellations are more or less a mnemonic, from the days when people told time by the stars.

You can take a kid down the back yard and show them the stars, and explain it by "see those three stars close together in a line? Yeah, those ones, where I'm pointing. That's Orion's sword, and that over there is his belt, and that <waving your arm like a crazy person> is his helmet ...." You're trying to tell the kid that everything up there is your knowledge, a human thing which is knowable, when a child's senses are telling them that it's a mindblowing thing, essentially random at that level of knowledge, yet immutable and ancient.

I understand how mankind is awed by the stars. There is hindu and chinese astrology too, essentially marked out by the big ol' moon, which rules them all from it's close station.

And our lives are big, scarey things too. Our own natures, our potentials, our futures, are essentially unknowable by any chart of the ancients, or even of our best scientific minds of today.

I say astrology should be tested. Astrologers, knowing another person as well as they can without knowing their birthday, should be invited to determine that person's star sign, their various astrological qualities, and then to guess their birthday. The internet, and in particular an impersonal and anonymous forum, seems the ideal tool to test this 'science.'

Bring it on. I am not a Saggitarius. 11 guesses left.
Il Ruffino is not a Scorpio. 11 guesses left. Leo?


Considering that we are talking about character traits here that a certain demographic is - according to astrology - more likely to have than would be average, I think your suggested test will need some revision.
First of all, you would need to significantly increase the number of people tested.

And no, neither of you is a Leo I think.
Gemini, is my guess.

Actually, there are much more than 13 constellations along the ecliptic. But... have you ever wondered why you thought there are only 13?

Therein lies your answer.
Excuse me? I haven't been doing astronomy this many years without knowing how many constellations are on the eclipic. Unless you're talking about the constellations of another culture, but they aren't used in astrology either.

Actually, there are much more than 13 constellations along the ecliptic. But... have you ever wondered why you thought there are only 13?

Therein lies your answer.
There are 13. Although that's just according to modern astronomical (not astrological) divisions which also don't divide the constellations in neat 30° boxes.

Pluto strays far away from the ecliptic, into strange constellations, but astrologers always keep it in the same band as the rest.

Oh, like a blind Pepsi Challenge.

You pick the set of attributes you feel are closest to you, and then see wich starsign you picked.

Interesting, but how do you insure honesty in the veiwer?
That's where professional ethics would come in, if astrology were allowed to be a professional practice.

How do you ensure honesty in your doctor? Do you really need those drugs, or is he getting kickbacks from drug companies for peddling them?

Considering that we are talking about character traits here that a certain demographic is - according to astrology - more likely to have than would be average, I think your suggested test will need some revision.
Absolutely! That's me, always with the big ideas, no legwork.
A website questionairre, with the questions composed and weighted by professional astrologers. Then, when the punter has finished, ask them their birthday. Get a few thousand responses, tune the questions a bit, then start predicting their star sign before they tell their birthday. It gets big from there, and you've got a proof.
It's bunk.First of all, you would need to significantly increase the number of people tested.
But will I do that? No. I'm too lazy.

And no, neither of you is a Leo I think.
Gemini, is my guess.

Me, not a Gemini. 9 guesses left.

Sorry, when I said "It's bunk" I meant, "I'm confident that a scientific study would show it to have very poor predictive power."
Not even 'none at all.' There are enough astrology believers who have changed their characters and made different choices in their lives (same thing perhaps), to show some correlation in a large enough study. Good for them. In a sense, they are taking control of their lives by believing in something, and giving themselves some direction other than just 'where they think the herd is headed.'

I really would like to see it. Probably it's been done, as someone's PhD.

Allow me to show you an image of my actual horoscope at birth in one of the conventional chart forms with an included tabular form so that you might understand why what you stated above is complete bullshit.
The first symbolism that caught my eye was a challenge to learn and grow. Nice. :-)

The only thing star signs will tell you is how much the person in question believes in star signs. Everything else is bunk.
Hopefully, it has a bit more to say than that.

If done right, it's not telling you who you are. You know well enough who you are, you don't need a chart (either astrological or psychological) to tell you.

I'm a Leo myself. Of all the relationships I had in the past, 70% were with Sagittarius. Not only that, but my two closest female friends are Sagittarius as well... the ratio seems a bit high for pure coincidence, doesn't it?


It runs a little deeper than that. Being a "Leo" means that it's your sun sign. There's also the moon, your rising, and various other planetary bodies taken into account.

For instance, I am a Cancer with a Cancer rising and a Pisces moon (according to my birth chart). This sets me apart from, say, a Cancer with a Taurus rising and a Capricorn moon.

It's why you need the exact place and time and date of your birth, so that you can know which constellation was rising, where the sun, moon, and other planets were, and what was exactly over your head at the moment of your birth (ascention).

Astrology isn't science by any stretch of the imagination, but it does run a lot deeper than just "I'm a Leo". :)

I'm inclined to agree, but think a proper, large-scale, unbiased study should be carried out to find out for sure.

If it turns out to be coincidence then everybody can stop bothering with it and all the premium-rate horoscope lines can be shut down.

If it turns out to have basis in fact then wouldn't it be fascinating to know how the positions of planets millions to billions of miles (and stars umpteen lightyears) away can affect your day-to-day life?
Many studies have been carried out in the 20th Century, most notably at Berkley university in California. To mention a couple others, by psychologist Vernon Clark, and by Nona Press, who belongs to a group calling themselves the 'National Council for Geocosmic Research' in New York City. Interesting stuff.

It runs a little deeper than that. Being a "Leo" means that it's your sun sign. There's also the moon, your rising, and various other planetary bodies taken into account.

For instance, I am a Cancer with a Cancer rising and a Pisces moon (according to my birth chart). This sets me apart from, say, a Cancer with a Taurus rising and a Capricorn moon.

It's why you need the exact place and time and date of your birth, so that you can know which constellation was rising, where the sun, moon, and other planets were, and what was exactly over your head at the moment of your birth (ascention).

Astrology isn't science by any stretch of the imagination, but it does run a lot deeper than just "I'm a Leo". :)


Oh, it does, I know. I just find that the deeper you get, and the more accurate the description of your character is trying to be, the more inaccurate it actually becomes.
I'm well aware that I'm not identical to each and every Leo on the planet, but I have found that there are character traits that I come across again and again with other Leos and that I also find in myself. A certain temper, a good deal of generosity, good with responsibilities but not with duties, that kind of thing ;)

I've met two other people in my hometown that share my same birthday, one of them a girl who was born only an hour after I was born. How could we have unique horoscopes?
Well, the astrologers have got an out for that too. Your "rising sign" which changes every two hours. That girl doesn't necessarily have the same rising sign, therefore all sorts of things can be made more, or less significant in your charts.
My chart is an absolute horror. So I have very little incentive to believe in it, quite apart from thinking the whole thing is bunk.

Sane Outcasts: a capricorn. For sure.
Yes, but what about two people born in the same minute, or within seconds? They would have identical charts, even rising sign.

Sane Outcasts is correct to object. It is not the horoscope chart that is unique for each individual, but the results of the reading. Simply put, Sane Outcasts is not that other girl, so they will necessarily have different readings. Different people = different results.

I don't understand..
*hugs* :-)

Sceptic to the max. How in the world would starsigns have any effect on a person? At all? I mean, hell, I was born December 15, making me a Sagittarius, of course I was born three weeks early, and if I had been born on the day I was supposed to be born, I would have been a Capricorn. How does the time of my moment of birth affect my personality?

I was born three weeks early, and if I had been born on the day I was supposed to be born

A great deal of people believe that you are born on the day you were supposed to be born ... regardless. 40 weeks is merely a rough estimate. Nobody can predict the exact day you'll be born.

Yay! Here's mine:
I don't know what any of that means. Probably something along the lines of having power over who lives and who dies.
Well, the first symbolism that pops out at me is that nothing is going to be taken too seriously. That's not a bad thing. ;)

A great deal of people believe that you are born on the day you were supposed to be born ... regardless. 40 weeks is merely a rough estimate. Nobody can predict the exact day you'll be born.
Yet my birthdate was manmade. If I wasn't born when I was, and my mom carried me to full term, she would have died. Instead the doctor induced labor as early as he could. There's nothing natural about my birthday.

Hell, if you look at the ecliptic, it's just a mess of stars.
The constellations are more or less a mnemonic, from the days when people told time by the stars.
Just so. But nevertheless there are 'pictures' derived of them from our perspective, tracing the myths through the sky; and similarly, everything in astrology is appearances.

You can take a kid down the back yard and show them the stars, and explain it by "see those three stars close together in a line? Yeah, those ones, where I'm pointing. That's Orion's sword, and that over there is his belt, and that <waving your arm like a crazy person> is his helmet ...." You're trying to tell the kid that everything up there is your knowledge, a human thing which is knowable, when a child's senses are telling them that it's a mindblowing thing, essentially random at that level of knowledge, yet immutable and ancient.
So now you've provided a context of meaning (purpose) behind your demonstrating the pictures in the sky: what you're "trying to tell the kid." Astrology, similarly, presents information in a context of meaning. (And in another context, astrology, similarly, once you get to know what it is, is meaningful and not so much mind-blowing.)

I understand how mankind is awed by the stars. There is hindu and chinese astrology too, essentially marked out by the big ol' moon, which rules them all from it's close station.

And our lives are big, scarey things too. Our own natures, our potentials, our futures, are essentially unknowable by any chart of the ancients, or even of our best scientific minds of today.

I say astrology should be tested. Astrologers, knowing another person as well as they can without knowing their birthday, should be invited to determine that person's star sign, their various astrological qualities, and then to guess their birthday. The internet, and in particular an impersonal and anonymous forum, seems the ideal tool to test this 'science.'
Astrology is tested, with every chart that is made, and every astrologer who finds in it radical symbolism.

As to the testing you mention, it all depends on what you are testing for (what you are trying to get out of it).

Bring it on. I am not a Saggitarius. 11 guesses left.
Il Ruffino is not a Scorpio. 11 guesses left. Leo?
What is being tested here (besides out ability to guess)?

Our own natures, our potentials, our futures, are essentially unknowable by any chart of the ancients, or even of our best scientific minds of today.
I agree with this 100%.

i'm a taurus (sun sign) and some of the taurean qualities definitely suit me. i can be stubborn, but i'm generally pretty open and trustworthy, i like my "home comforts" and can be picky about such things... yet i like to travel.

not all of it goes with how i actually am, but some traits do very much.
i don't remember what my moon/rising signs were, but they were in that book of glitzi's and it was very accurate indeed :)


so all in all i put no real stock in any of it (except that i've found i generally get on well with other tauruses and don't get on with geminis), and its of mild interest and a bit of fun, generally speaking

Excuse me? I haven't been doing astronomy this many years without knowing how many constellations are on the eclipic. Unless you're talking about the constellations of another culture, but they aren't used in astrology either.
Yes, of course I meant other cultures, not just those of our time but those of times past who have variously assigned the same stars in different sets as constellations.

There are 13. Although that's just according to modern astronomical (not astrological) divisions which also don't divide the constellations in neat 30° boxes.

Pluto strays far away from the ecliptic, into strange constellations, but astrologers always keep it in the same band as the rest.
There are indeed.

Oh, it does, I know. I just find that the deeper you get, and the more accurate the description of your character is trying to be, the more inaccurate it actually becomes.
I'm well aware that I'm not identical to each and every Leo on the planet, but I have found that there are character traits that I come across again and again with other Leos and that I also find in myself. A certain temper, a good deal of generosity, good with responsibilities but not with duties, that kind of thing ;)
But isn't it also true that people who are not Leos have those traits in abundance?

Sceptic to the max. How in the world would starsigns have any effect on a person? At all? I mean, hell, I was born December 15, making me a Sagittarius, of course I was born three weeks early, and if I had been born on the day I was supposed to be born, I would have been a Capricorn. How does the time of my moment of birth affect my personality?
It doesn't; it really doesn't.

Astrology is not about the stars affecting us.

I don't understand..
i think you mean...

http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/ruffy.jpg



sorry, i had to do that :p

Yet my birthdate was manmade. If I wasn't born when I was, and my mom carried me to full term, she would have died. Instead the doctor induced labor as early as he could. There's nothing natural about my birthday.

Depends on how you look at it. Medical science is quite natural (otherwise it wouldn't exist) and, therefore, your birth through its use is, in fact, quite natural.

i'm a taurus (sun sign) and some of the taurean qualities definitely suit me. i can be stubborn, but i'm generally pretty open and trustworthy, i like my "home comforts" and can be picky about such things... yet i like to travel.

not all of it goes with how i actually am, but some traits do very much.
i don't remember what my moon/rising signs were, but they were in that book of glitzi's and it was very accurate indeed :)


so all in all i put no real stock in any of it (except that i've found i generally get on well with other tauruses and don't get on with geminis), and its of mild interest and a bit of fun, generally speaking
This is a young man who could be an aspiring astrologer, if he so chooses.

He's already got a handle on the lingo. He recognizes that "being a Taurus" is not about conforming to all that the symbol means; it's about traits in him --traits that he already has (stubbornness, trustworthyness, comfort) --being matched up with what Taurus means. Those traits, then, are Taurus ...for his chart. When we read for his chart, we read those things, not "Taurus".

Astrology is all about him, about the individual, not about what the starsigns mean.

I'm a Leo myself. Of all the relationships I had in the past, 70% were with Sagittarius. Not only that, but my two closest female friends are Sagittarius as well... the ratio seems a bit high for pure coincidence, doesn't it?


That is because Sagittarii always find Leos to be so much fun. ;) It is common knowledge that Sagittarii are trouble makers at heart and that Leos like to think "big".

It's ridiculous. Absolute crap. Utter bullshit.

**Millions of Minarians clap**

*nods*

This is a young man who could be an aspiring astrologer, if he so chooses.

He's already got a handle on the lingo. He recognizes that "being a Taurus" is not about conforming to all that the symbol means; it's about traits in him --traits that he already has (stubbornness, trustworthyness, comfort) --being matched up with what Taurus means. Those traits, then, are Taurus ...for his chart. When we read for his chart, we read those things, not "Taurus".

Astrology is all about him, about the individual, not about what the starsigns mean.
yay! :)

i don't think i will become an astrologer, but thank you :fluffle: :)

Me, I'm a Leo. as for the traits that fit me... I dunno, I've seen different traits depending on who writes them.


I tend to follow my Chinese Zodiac... for that, I'm a Dog.


so, basically, within me, I'm a dog and a cat... no wonder I'm so messed up. :p

Sceptic to the max. How in the world would starsigns have any effect on a person? At all? I mean, hell, I was born December 15, making me a Sagittarius, of course I was born three weeks early, and if I had been born on the day I was supposed to be born, I would have been a Capricorn. How does the time of my moment of birth affect my personality?
The moment of your birth, whatever it was, is when the chart is made for. Obviously, there is no "supposed to be" about when you are born. It happens.

That chart, for that moment, whichever moment it may be, is the one used to do natal astrology.

It's a chart of the stars at that moment. In that same moment, a gazillion things were happening on earth, and an uncountable number of things were happening all over the galaxy. The suggestion that that chart can be used to describe that person --one person of thousands born that day --born on earth in a hospital bed in Nowhereville --all of that person, including everything they do and are in a life-time --streches all credibility.

But that is not a proper claim of astrology. Anyone who makes such a claim, doesn't know what astrology is about.

Google a dozen astrology webpages, they do make such claims. Sad, but true. The profession is not licenced, not regulated, not even widely professional taught. Anyone can pick up a book of symbols and claim to have "learned astrology." Gimmicks claiming to be astrology appear in newspapers, in magazines, on the web. People claiming to be astrologers appear on television and radio --some of them actually are, don't get me wrong. But there is a lot of charlatanism out there, both witting and unwitting.

The symbols of a chart are nothing more than symbols of a chart. How they are used is what is mistaken by many people assuming that they know what astrology is about. It's not about predicting the future (although it can do that, in a sense). It's not about the stars telling you about yourself. It's properly about you telling you about things. Astrology is just symbolism. Symbols are things that represent other things. The chart is made into a reflection of you in symbols. Their meaning is what you make of them.

The symbols are arranged based on the positions of the planets at a moment in time against a backdrop of stars, and as viewed from the earth. The planets, the stars, and the earth are all given symbolic meaning in the chart. They have symbolic meaning relative to you, lying there as a newborn in the hospital bed in Nowhereville. They have a literal meaning, assigned as you might read on webpages and such (Venus = love), and another more useful associative meaning which is assigned by you (Venus = Maryjane Johnson at this time in my life). YOU are who give the symbols meaning in astrology.

Astrology is a tool, a method, of divination. Any set of randomly placed or determined items can be used to do divination --a toss of sticks onto the ground, a roll of dice, a face-down tarot card, a set of clouds in the sky, a group of birds flying overhead, or a pattern of lights in the heavens. Etc. Divination makes these things into symbols for the diviner. The symbols themselves have no "power", they have no purpose apart from you, the diviner --they have no ability to tell you anything that you don't already know. They are only used by you to bring things to your awareness.

If you had been born 3 weeks later, in Capricorn, then the chart used as your natal chart would be different. Neither chart is "right" or "wrong" for you, just different. The chart used for your birth can be as meaningful as the chart used for 3 weeks after your birth, or 3 days before your birth, or even today. The birth chart has a special significance, though, by virtue of that moment being when you were born being a particularly significant moment to you. And it's YOU who matters.

The meaning for "Sagittarius" in your chart, in your life, is not its literal meaning you read on webpages and such, it is the associative meaning of the symbol to you. That meaning, the one you assign, is what is used to make a reading. The literal symbol has some things in common with you --all of the symbols of astrology do. The things that literal Sagittarius describes in your life are not necessarily Sagittarius for you.

Each of the things in your life that match each of the symbols in the chart are the significant meanings of those symbols, and knowing them, having defined what those symbols mean for you, the astrologer can then proceed to read your chart. Astrology only starts *after* the symbols have been defined for you.

A chart for one person that is identical for another --it doesn't matter. What matters in astrology is you.

Most astrology sites are happy to provide people with a "reading" based on the literal meanings of the symbols. That is not astrology. Those symbols are not yet defined for you. Astrology can only begin when those symbols have been defined for you. If you get such a reading done, and intend for it to be useful, through it and pick out what in your life matches those things, and then, after you've done that, the process of astrology can begin.

Do you see all the "to you"s I used? Astrology is not objectively true, which is why Nobel Hobos is testing for the wrong thing. Astrology is read for an individual, for meaning for that individual, and so it is necessarily subjective.

You got a problem with guesswork?
I won't spoil the suspense. Guess mine, or if you prefer, that of someone you know better!
Come on, let's have some fun here :)
No, no problem. I just like to know the why of things. One of my signs is Scorpio. Guess which one, if you dare. Mwahaha!:p

I say (my second guess) Fasc Dominion is .... Leo!
Aaaaand that's two failures for you. Any more takers?:p

I could quote one of those endless horoscope pages, but it's really just that you remind me most of the Aries I've know :)
Like I said: I'm really more of a mutt. I've got characteristics from all of them, but no, I'm not Aries.:p

Like I said: I'm really more of a mutt. I've got characteristics from all of them, but no, I'm not Aries.:p
so, you were born in the year of the Dog then?



as for my guess... I say... Cancer.

Hopefully, it has a bit more to say than that.

If done right, it's not telling you who you are. You know well enough who you are, you don't need a chart (either astrological or psychological) to tell you.
I don't. Is there someone else who could help me with that?

Well, the first symbolism that pops out at me is that nothing is going to be taken too seriously. That's not a bad thing. ;)
Yay! Next girlfriend who complains about that I'm going to tell her it's Jupiter's fault. :D

Sceptic to the max. How in the world would starsigns have any effect on a person? At all? I mean, hell, I was born December 15, making me a Sagittarius, of course I was born three weeks early, and if I had been born on the day I was supposed to be born, I would have been a Capricorn. How does the time of my moment of birth affect my personality?
Fields and energies.
*hides from stones and acorns....and the Spanish Inquisition*

Yay! Next girlfriend who complains about that I'm going to tell her it's Jupiter's fault. :D
LOL

I know exactly one art student in real life, and she's Libra... ;)

im an art student and im a libra!

I'm skeptical but it's wierd, I always find myself attracted to Scorpios (before I find out that they are Scorpios) and the best sex I've ever had has always been with Scorpios. I also married a Scorpio.

Scorpios are supposed to be very sexual and I usually find that to be true.

I'm an Aries.

i think you mean...

http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/ruffy.jpg



sorry, i had to do that :p
LOL That's awesome!

But isn't it also true that people who are not Leos have those traits in abundance?

I never said they hadn't. I'm not saying that there are character traits that are exclusive to any star sign. But there are certain blends of character traits that seem (seem! I have no scientific data of any kind to back this up, I'm just stating my own observations here!) to be more prevalent in one sign than in another.

That is because Sagittarii always find Leos to be so much fun. ;) It is common knowledge that Sagittarii are trouble makers at heart and that Leos like to think "big".


Hehe... it's maybe also because Leos love trouble makers. Anything that entertains them is good ;)

I'm skeptical but it's wierd, I always find myself attracted to Scorpios (before I find out that they are Scorpios) and the best sex I've ever had has always been with Scorpios. I also married a Scorpio.

Scorpios are supposed to be very sexual and I usually find that to be true.

I'm an Aries.

Same with me and Sagittarii. It's not that I would ask people their star sign straight away when I meet them... they just always seem to turn out to be Sagittarii.

Any more takers?:p

Aquarius?

Horoscopes are the ancient equivalent of Internet Personality Quizzes. Highly popular because they're about YOU, vague and general enough to be applicable to most people, and completely lacking any kind of basis in fact.

I don't believe any of it.

That being said, I'm an Aquarius, have many Aquarian attributes, and continue to be fascinated by this crap everytime someone shows me a new website (such as one posted here earlier; wasted a lot of prescious time reading and reading...).

yay! :)

i don't think i will become an astrologer, but thank you :fluffle: :)
Everyone needs a good hobby.

Bring it on. I am not a Saggitarius. 11 guesses left.
Il Ruffino is not a Scorpio. 11 guesses left. Leo?
What is being tested here (besides out ability to guess)?
Not much, I admit. :)
You're a better astrologer than I am a scientist.
I've gotten neck deep in three threads that matter to me, and I'm happy to admit that I was just having some fun here.

But: astrology to me is a test of the scientific open mind.
Those who dismiss it outright, fail.
Those who accept it unconditionally, fail.

I think there's something religious about looking at the stars. It's an experience as old as sight (well, focussed vision) and certainly older than hominids. Anyone who claims that it affects them only on an intellectual level probably isn't being scientific, or else has stared at stars for so long that they're not seeing stars any more, but scientific abstractions.

I don't see constellations. I see stars. One night, bent on acid, I saw the spaces between the stars. I was very scared, but counselled myself that it was just the limitations of my vision that stopped me seeing more, dimmer stars in the blackness. But even so ... it's mostly empty, up there. We clutch at straws.

Same with me and Sagittarii. It's not that I would ask people their star sign straight away when I meet them... they just always seem to turn out to be Sagittarii.


Yep, the very first girl I fell in love with was a Scorpio. Every long term relationship I have had was with a Scorpio. I've even had two online relationships where I find that the girl I was courting is a Scorpio. Every single one of them were highly sexual.

As an Aries I am supposed to be a very sexual being as well, but not as much as the Scorpios and that is always the case with the Scorpios I get with; they end up wearing me out as I put everything I have into satifying their high energy lust.

It's always fun trying though and I never get any complaints but it's obvious that my level of sexual energy is consistently lower than the Scorpio girls I get with.

so, you were born in the year of the Dog then?



as for my guess... I say... Cancer.
Pfft! Year of the Dragon FTW!:cool:

And no.:p

Aquarius?
Nope.:p

Me, I'm a Leo. as for the traits that fit me... I dunno, I've seen different traits depending on who writes them.


I tend to follow my Chinese Zodiac... for that, I'm a Dog.


so, basically, within me, I'm a dog and a cat... no wonder I'm so messed up. :p

Hehe... I'm Leo, and Tiger in the Chinese horoscope. Any more cat in my stars and I'd probably sprout whiskers ;)

I think I just barely was born in the year of the Snake. I thought that I was born in the year of the Horse, but it turns out that I just missed it.

I never said they hadn't. I'm not saying that there are character traits that are exclusive to any star sign. But there are certain blends of character traits that seem (seem! I have no scientific data of any kind to back this up, I'm just stating my own observations here!) to be more prevalent in one sign than in another.
Okay, but again, even in the context of "seems to be" you are saying that all Leos seem to have certain traits.

Isn't it true that other people also seem to have those traits in abundance?

Pfft! Year of the Dragon FTW!:cool:

And no.:p
ohhh.... danger!

Dragons and Dogs don't mix! :p

Horoscopes are the ancient equivalent of Internet Personality Quizzes. Highly popular because they're about YOU, vague and general enough to be applicable to most people, and completely lacking any kind of basis in fact.

I don't believe any of it.

That being said, I'm an Aquarius, have many Aquarian attributes, and continue to be fascinated by this crap everytime someone shows me a new website (such as one posted here earlier; wasted a lot of prescious time reading and reading...).
Well, if they're just reading the meaning of the literal symbols, then they are not about YOU at all.

Hehe... I'm Leo, and Tiger in the Chinese horoscope. Any more cat in my stars and I'd probably sprout whiskers ;)
a Cabra in a Catsuit... boy do I want to see that... I mean I really WANNA SEE THAT! :D

my family would love you... more Tigers than anything else!

Okay, but again, even in the context of "seems to be" you are saying that all Leos seem to have certain traits.

Isn't it true that other people also seem to have those traits in abundance, too?

I think the difference may simply be the combination of character traits. And I'm not saying all Leos have them, nor do I say that others don't. I'm saying that certain combinations of characteristics seem to appear more often with one star sign than they do with others.

Okay, but again, even in the context of "seems to be" you are saying that all Leos seem to have certain traits.

Isn't it true that other people also seem to have those traits in abundance?
I believe that the dominating trait in a person is one of the traits of the sign. not that those traits are only for that person or that the person only has the traits of that sign.


then again, this is more of a passing... interest... if at all.... to me.

Not much, I admit. :)
You're a better astrologer than I am a scientist.
I've gotten neck deep in three threads that matter to me, and I'm happy to admit that I was just having some fun here.

But: astrology to me is a test of the scientific open mind.
Those who dismiss it outright, fail.
Those who accept it unconditionally, fail.
Okay, but if all we are accepting is that 'A means B to me', I cannot see it as a failure of any sort. Neither is it science; science is necessarily objective.

I think there's something religious about looking at the stars. It's an experience as old as sight (well, focussed vision) and certainly older than hominids. Anyone who claims that it affects them only on an intellectual level probably isn't being scientific, or else has stared at stars for so long that they're not seeing stars any more, but scientific abstractions.

I don't see constellations. I see stars. One night, bent on acid, I saw the spaces between the stars. I was very scared, but counselled myself that it was just the limitations of my vision that stopped me seeing more, dimmer stars in the blackness. But even so ... it's mostly empty, up there. We clutch at straws.
No argument, there.

It’s all archaic bullshit and I pity anyone who waists their time and money on it.

I mean God-fucking damn it. It’s not the third fucking century BC. We know what the God-dammed stars, planets commits and shit are.

a Cabra in a Catsuit... boy do I want to see that... I mean I really WANNA SEE THAT! :D

my family would love you... more Tigers than anything else!

Hehe... I don't even have a picture of that, sorry ;)

I grew up in a family with 3 Tauri... I had a hard time.

I think the difference may simply be the combination of character traits. And I'm not saying all Leos have them, nor do I say that others don't. I'm saying that certain combinations of characteristics seem to appear more often with one star sign than they do with others.
So if certain characteristics seem to appear more often with some people of a sign, does that say anything significant about that sign?

I believe that the dominating trait in a person is one of the traits of the sign. not that those traits are only for that person or that the person only has the traits of that sign.
Alright, then... what determines which trait dominates?

ohhh.... danger!

Dragons and Dogs don't mix! :p
Lies!:eek:
I mix well with everyone.:):p

So if certain characteristics seem to appear more often with some people of a sign, does that say anything significant about that sign?

*shrugs
Depends on what you mean by "something significant"

Alright, then... what determines which trait dominates?
Well, if you believe in Astrology... the stars, moons and other celestrial influnces...

if you don't, how one is raised, the values they are taught...

if you believe in the two... genetic predisposition determined by the influence of celstrial forces.

It’s all archaic bullshit and I pity anyone who waists their time and money on it.

I mean God-fucking damn it. It’s not the third fucking century BC. We know what the God-dammed stars, planets commits and shit are.
2006 AD and we're still in a world of mystics.

2006 AD and we're still in a world of mystics.
yep... that's what my Oracle told me. :D

*shrugs
Depends on what you mean by "something significant"
Having consequences in that it actually means something.

Alright; I'll stop ruining your fun...
;)

Lies!:eek:
I mix well with everyone.:):p
the traits of the Dog and Dragon are directly conflicting. oh we will work fine like this or even on some Projects (if we worked together) but long term projects or even longer mixings will have some major clashes.

I love my brother, I can work with him, but once, we roomed together with no other family and it was a battlezone.

the traits of the Dog and Dragon are directly conflicting. oh we will work fine like this or even on some Projects (if we worked together) but long term projects or even longer mixings will have some major clashes.

I love my brother, I can work with him, but once, we roomed together with no other family and it was a battlezone.
Notice how we never spam together for long.:D

Notice how we never spam together for long.:D
;)

then again, for most of those, I blame Jolt. :mad:

;)

then again, for most of those, I blame Jolt. :mad:
LOL It might be better that way, though.;):p