Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Terese... Ed's challenges are of his own making. The lurkers aren't interested in feeding into his psychosis. BTW... This is not exactly a " Western Sidereal " Board... Jivio --- Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > This is a western sidereal board, and I've used the > sidereal zodiac for > many years. There have to be a number of long-time > sidereal lurkers out > there besides the few who have posted. How would YOU > try to convince > someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the > signs work in > astrological delineation? Before Ed came up with his > challenges, I thought > this would be easy!! > > So what can you all say? > > Terese > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation? Before Ed came up with his challenges, I thought this would be easy!! --\ ------ Although I don't know what astrological delineation means, I will try to give my answer for this question. First I would want to find as many " fan " astrologers as possible and do charts for them under the apprenticeship of a more experienced astrologer. The mentor astrologer would be there to bail me out when I get in over my head as I eventually do with everything. That astrologer would also be a mediator if I ever blew my top which I always do. Besides people trust a face with maturity in it. My face although 30 only looks 21 at best. My goal would not be to say that tropical is wrong but just to give them a sample of what I can offer. I would treat it like a business and just try to build " a brand name " My part would be mostly my networking and people skills. I may be forgetting somethings but that is only how I would start. I don't think it would be easy at all though. But I find that a lot of my fellow members have excellent mathematical minds but they don't know how to talk to people in general. That will cripple the potential for a Siderealist to gain public recognition. -------oDamono----------- This is a western sidereal board, and I've used the sidereal zodiac for many years. There have to be a number of long-time sidereal lurkers out there besides the few who have posted. How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation? Before Ed came up with his challenges, I thought this would be easy!! So what can you all say? Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 At 09:04 PM 1/12/03 -0800, Jivio wrote: > >BTW... This is not exactly a " Western Sidereal " >Board... Yes, but isn't that what it's supposed to be? >Ed's challenges are of his own making. >The lurkers aren't interested in feeding into his >psychosis. But don't we all make our own challenges, and is there any reason not to meet a person's challenge if it's an opportuinity to show our own truth? Don't we love astrology and want to show that it works? Don't we want to demonstrate evidence for our signs? Or is, " Well, it works for me! " enough? This has been the Tropical arugment for decades. Can't we go one better? Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 At 07:48 AM 1/13/03 -0800, Damon wrote: >Although I don't know what astrological delineation means It means 'reading the horoscope.' , I will try to give my answer for this question. > >First I would want to find as many " fan " astrologers I'm not clear on what you mean by 'fan'....? >>as possible and do charts for them under the apprenticeship of a more experienced astrologer. Reading individual horoscopes wouldn't be difficult. Sometimes I think that's all we can do with astrology...read individual charts because each one is so different you need to know 10,000,000,000 combinations to get every chart exactly right. With each chart there are shifts that completely change the meaning of the chart. Midpoints change, degrees change, the sub charts change....maybe we're not meant to get it at all. Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 <<This is a western sidereal board, and I've used the sidereal zodiac for many years. There have to be a number of long-time sidereal lurkers out there besides the few who have posted. How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation? Before Ed came up with his challenges, I thought this would be easy!! So what can you all say?. -- Terese>> There is no need to " convince " others about anything, but if I were to demonstrate the efficacy or usefulness of the (or " a " ) sidereal zodiac over the tropical, I would put aside zodiacal sign characteristics --which I think are trivial and boring-- and start giving example of sidereal vs. tropical timing of events, which in my opinion reflects a much more fundamental difference between the two frames and which sadly is almost always ignored in the " sidereal vs. tropical " debate. " Sidereal " does not refer to zodiacal divisions only. It is a way of measuring time, based on the sidereal year instead of the tropical, a change in the reference frame with which we measure distances in time and space. This results in time and position differences between any 2 dates or charts when compared with a tropical reference frame, affecting the timing of transits, progressions, directions, returns, etc. The astrological aspects between 2 charts or any 2 moments of time, if separated enough in time, will be different if measured in the sidereal reference frame from those measured in a tropical reference frame. In the interval between any two dates, precession accumulates, as the tropical zodiac moves or rotates over the fixed sidereal zodiac. This affects all astrological calculations that involve time, so that precession must be applied always when a comparison is made between two dates, as in transits, synastry, progressions, returns, etc. A good example is the calculation of transits to national or political (mundane) charts, which are separated from the radical by a considerable amount of time. All positions will shift 1 degree every 72 years. Given time enough, all aspects will be different if you work sidereally or tropically, and the differences between 2 dates that are closer in time will show in the timing of events. All sidereal calculations require that we apply small " bija " corrections to the tropical positions, and this will imply a difference in the timing of, for example, transits. We often see posts dealing with transits over national charts which would be completely wrong mathematically or astronomically if we were working sidereally. Some practical examples from day-to-day experience: 1- Transits: when the distance in time between the 2 dates is very large (a few centuries), the transits, for example, will be completely different. 2- Progressions: secondary progressions will happen later in the sidereal reference frame, at the rate of 1 day per every year of life. 3- Solar returns: the houses are completely different and the position of the Moon (putting the houses aside) is the main key as it is increasingly away from its tropical return equivalent. 4- Synastry: its the same as with transits. Results can be radically different if one uses precession and the 2 dates are separated by a considerable number of years. Many programs have the capability of showing positions in some conventional sidereal zodiac, but they never apply precession to their calculations, and keep using the tropical year instead of the sidereal year, yielding wrong results. Precession is not a question of " position " only, it is also a question of time. All time calculations are affected by precession through an " acceleration " of sidereal = 1.002738 x tropical. A good illustration is the secondary progressed Moon of the U.S. Boyd " War " chart (6 July 1775, 16:00:40 GMT), which was in exact conjunction with radical Pluto at the time of the WTC attack: Boyd direct secondary progressed Moon: 25,26 Capricorn precession-corrected 3,50 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley Boyd radical Pluto: 25,45 Capricorn 4,08 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley exact time of the conjunction: sidereal = 18 September 2001 tropical = 4 February 2001 Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. It is in my opinion unfortunate that discussions on this matter tend to center on the zodiacal divisions, leaving aside the (to me) much more important and practical differences in astrological timing. These time differences are ignored often by software programmers, who say their programs can shift to " sidereal " while remaining calculating with the tropical year, which is an absurdity. My feeling is that both sidereal and tropical signs are mere adornments as long as those words are taken simplistically as a question of competing zero points from which to draw the geometrical 30-degree divisions, and the fundamental physical fact of their different rotating velocities (the displacement) is ignored in the discussion. The biggest obstacle in the tropical-sidereal discussion, from my personal standpoint, is the --to me-- medieval or archaic obsession of giving to the imaginary 30-degree signs of the zodiac an ontological or cosmological quality. This type of absolutism forces people to think in either/or terms, one is correct the others are wrong, and of course, it usually goes like " I am right, you are wrong " . These types of discussions are mental/psychological traps that lead nowhere. Each zodiac MUST be valid from its own historical, cultural, and geometrical perspective. What we need is to understand this perspective, instead of being obsessed with finding the alleged " correct " ayanamsa, the mythical " key " that supersedes all others. This type of search in my view is of very little value. Juan Revilla p.s. please do not confuse with Juan Oliver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 At 02:19 PM 1/14/03 -0000, Juan Revilla wrote: > >There is no need to " convince " others about anything, but if I were to demonstrate the efficacy or usefulness of the (or " a " ) sidereal zodiac over the tropical, I would put aside zodiacal sign characteristics --which I think are trivial and boring-- and start giving example of sidereal vs. tropical timing of events, which in my opinion reflects a much more fundamental difference between the two frames and which sadly is almost always ignored in the " sidereal vs. tropical " debate...<< Juan, thanks for a wonderfully thought out and enlightening post!! Yes, timing is the essence of the tropical/sidereal debate. If the signs have specific meanings, that is an entirely different topic. And I agree that the signs are peripheral compared to timing and the planets. The signs are needed for the counseling astrologers, however. I'll reply to specific ideas in your post when I have time later today. Thanks again! Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 --- " prec2nod <hylonome " <hylonome wrote: > <<This is a western sidereal board, and I've used > the sidereal zodiac for many years. There have to be > a number of long-time sidereal lurkers out there > besides the few who have posted. How would YOU try > to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac > and that the signs work in astrological delineation? > Before Ed came up with his challenges, I thought > this would be easy!! So what can you all say?. -- > Terese>> > > Juan Revilla writes: There is no need to " convince " others about > anything, A point well taken in an atmosphere of exchange and dialogue. but if I were to demonstrate the efficacy > or usefulness of the (or " a " ) sidereal zodiac over > the tropical, I would put aside zodiacal sign > characteristics --which I think are trivial and > boring-- Unfortunately then you avoid the question. " How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation? " and start giving example of sidereal vs. > tropical timing of events, which in my opinion > reflects a much more fundamental difference between > the two frames and which sadly is almost always > ignored in the " sidereal vs. tropical " debate. I agree with you because the bottom line is results in forecasting correctly and sidereal is superior to tropical because it accounts for precession. Keep in mind though that many tropicalists alter their calculations and allow for precession. > > " Sidereal " does not refer to zodiacal divisions > only. It is a way of measuring time, based on the > sidereal year instead of the tropical, a change in > the reference frame with which we measure distances > in time and space. This results in time and position > differences between any 2 dates or charts when > compared with a tropical reference frame, affecting > the timing of transits, progressions, directions, > returns, etc. The astrological aspects between 2 > charts or any 2 moments of time, if separated enough > in time, will be different if measured in the > sidereal reference frame from those measured in a > tropical reference frame. > > In the interval between any two dates, precession > accumulates, as the tropical zodiac moves or rotates > over the fixed sidereal zodiac. This affects all > astrological calculations that involve time, so that > precession must be applied always when a comparison > is made between two dates, as in transits, synastry, > progressions, returns, etc. > > A good example is the calculation of transits to > national or political (mundane) charts, which are > separated from the radical by a considerable amount > of time. All positions will shift 1 degree every 72 > years. Given time enough, all aspects will be > different if you work sidereally or tropically, and > the differences between 2 dates that are closer in > time will show in the timing of events. > > All sidereal calculations require that we apply > small " bija " corrections to the tropical positions, Not all siderealists " require " the " bija correction " . Cyril Fagan postulated the use of the Bija rate in his book " Primer of Sidereal Astrology " . Unfortunately he never wrote later in life that he still held that conviction as some people who knew him contend that he waffled. I know of siderealists that have done research which disputed Fagan's written contention of utilizing the " bija rate " . I felt for years that the logic of its' use was substantial but recall having mixed results. > and this will imply a difference in the timing of, > for example, transits. We often see posts dealing > with transits over national charts which would be > completely wrong mathematically or astronomically if > we were working sidereally. The Bija rate as presented by Fagan was to be utilized when progressing charts. > > Some practical examples from day-to-day experience: > > 1- Transits: when the distance in time between the 2 > dates is very large (a few centuries), the transits, > for example, will be completely different. > > 2- Progressions: secondary progressions will happen > later in the sidereal reference frame, at the rate > of 1 day per every year of life. > > 3- Solar returns: the houses are completely > different and the position of the Moon (putting the > houses aside) is the main key as it is increasingly > away from its tropical return equivalent. > > 4- Synastry: its the same as with transits. Results > can be radically different if one uses precession > and the 2 dates are separated by a considerable > number of years. > > Many programs have the capability of showing > positions in some conventional sidereal zodiac, but > they never apply precession to their calculations, They claim that they do.. Are you confusing precession with the Bija rate? > and keep using the tropical year instead of the > sidereal year, yielding wrong results. Precession is > not a question of " position " only, it is also a > question of time. All time calculations are affected > by precession through an " acceleration " of sidereal > = 1.002738 x tropical. Solar Fire I believe utilizes .00237909 > > A good illustration is the secondary progressed Moon > of the U.S. Boyd " War " chart (6 July 1775, 16:00:40 > GMT), which was in exact conjunction with radical > Pluto at the time of the WTC attack: > > Boyd direct secondary progressed Moon: > 25,26 Capricorn precession-corrected > 3,50 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley > > Boyd radical Pluto: > 25,45 Capricorn > 4,08 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley > > exact time of the conjunction: > sidereal = 18 September 2001 > tropical = 4 February 2001 > > Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly > sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal > signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. > This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no > matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. I don't think so Juan... I just did the calculations utilizing Solar Fire and came up with the Progressed Boyd Moon 3 Cap 44 on 911. I utilized the Bija Rate in the calculations. The important thing though is what one sees when they view the USA " War " chart, its' progression(Sidereal with Bija Correction, Mean Quotidian and 911 collectively. A very impressive statement on validity of the mathmatics demonstrated. > > It is in my opinion unfortunate that discussions on > this matter tend to center on the zodiacal > divisions, leaving aside the (to me) much more > important and practical differences in astrological > timing. These time differences are ignored often by > software programmers, who say their programs can > shift to " sidereal " while remaining calculating with > the tropical year, which is an absurdity. > > My feeling is that both sidereal and tropical signs > are mere adornments as long as those words are taken > simplistically as a question of competing zero > points from which to draw the geometrical 30-degree > divisions, and the fundamental physical fact of > their different rotating velocities (the > displacement) is ignored in the discussion. > > The biggest obstacle in the tropical-sidereal > discussion, from my personal standpoint, is the --to > me-- medieval or archaic obsession of giving to the > imaginary 30-degree signs of the zodiac an > ontological or cosmological quality. This type of > absolutism forces people to think in either/or > terms, one is correct the others are wrong, and of > course, it usually goes like " I am right, you are > wrong " . These types of discussions are > mental/psychological traps that lead nowhere. I agree with your explanation with regards to traps... Its as classic as the dog chasing its tail.. I agree with you and Ed when it comes to focusing on the interaction of the planets. Cosmobiologists is a classic representation of looking at the " stars " (planets)(cosmos) in a biological mindset(chemical molecular structure=planetary inter-relationship). > > Each zodiac MUST be valid from its own historical, > cultural, and geometrical perspective. What we need > is to understand this perspective, instead of being > obsessed with finding the alleged " correct " > ayanamsa, the mythical " key " that supersedes all > others. This type of search in my view is of very > little value. > > Juan Revilla > In a sense the constellations offer man's historical record and I believe understanding the past enriches one's ability to move forward. Rupert Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " is always great reading as it reminds me of the heritage given astrologers. Studying the " signs " gives me insight. If anyone believes the signs are irrelative then I suggest they remove them completely from their work(charts). This is the time as Uranus moves into and through revolutionary minded Aquarius(or is that the other way around) that we exercise our wings(how about ya chris).Juan and Ed are pushing envelopes to expand and challenge our intelligence and belief systems as well as their own. It is about the interaction of the planets with ourselves that is most relaitive. > p.s. please do not confuse with Juan Oliver. > > LMAO... No one would ever confuse us if they knew us... Jivio Glad to see you surface on this group at this time ..... hope all is well with you... To repeat Teresa... How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation? " This isn't an exact science.... you either get it or you don't and the only avenue to understanding is experience. Read, Listen or as vinnie sez. " foooget about it " ..... > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- Kevin..... Does this mean Pluto is in Scorpio? > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , Juan and Juan wrote: JR > > and keep using the tropical year instead of the > > sidereal year, yielding wrong results. Precession is > > not a question of " position " only, it is also a > > question of time. All time calculations are affected > > by precession through an " acceleration " of sidereal > > = 1.002738 x tropical. > JO > Solar Fire I believe utilizes .00237909 > > > > > A good illustration is the secondary progressed Moon > > of the U.S. Boyd " War " chart (6 July 1775, 16:00:40 > > GMT), which was in exact conjunction with radical > > Pluto at the time of the WTC attack: > > > > Boyd direct secondary progressed Moon: > > 25,26 Capricorn precession-corrected > > 3,50 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley > > > > Boyd radical Pluto: > > 25,45 Capricorn > > 4,08 Capricorn sidereal Fagan/Bradley > > > > exact time of the conjunction: > > sidereal = 18 September 2001 > > tropical = 4 February 2001 > > > > Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly > > sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal > > signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. > > This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no > > matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. > > I don't think so Juan... I just did the calculations > utilizing Solar Fire and came up with the Progressed > Boyd Moon 3 Cap 44 on 911. I utilized the Bija Rate in > the calculations. Hi there, I thought that one could enter a value in Solar Fire one's self, is this not true? > The important thing though is what one sees when they > view the USA " War " chart, its' progression(Sidereal > with Bija Correction, Mean Quotidian and 911 > collectively. A very impressive statement on validity > of the mathmatics demonstrated. Er, why? There have been other transits of Pluto by the progressed Moon before last year's, and they also resulted in such an event? I think not. It may simply be a coincidence. I hope Juan R has sought other corresponding transits to this Pluto that would suggest that Boyd's chart is valid. > > > > > It is in my opinion unfortunate that discussions on > > this matter tend to center on the zodiacal > > divisions, leaving aside the (to me) much more > > important and practical differences in astrological > > timing. Indeed. Best, Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 --- " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <. > > Hi there, > > I thought that one could enter a value in Solar Fire > one's self, is > this not true? > > Yes.. It is possible to enter certain " values " in Solar Fire. Not as many " values " as I would like though. One choice in running progressions is the ability to either run the Standard Rate or Bija rate. > > > The important thing though is what one sees when > they > > view the USA " War " chart, its' > progression(Sidereal > > with Bija Correction, Mean Quotidian and 911 > > collectively. A very impressive statement on > validity > > of the mathmatics demonstrated. > > Er, why? There have been other transits of Pluto by > the progressed > Moon before last year's, and they also resulted in > such an event? I > think not. It may simply be a coincidence. I hope > Juan R has sought > other corresponding transits to this Pluto that > would suggest that > Boyd's chart is valid. > Your point suggests looking at previous examples of the progressed Moon conjuncting radical Pluto. I'm sure it would produce interesting results. The motivation of the paragraph was to encourage readers to view a " tri-wheel " of three charts. The center chart being the " War " chart, the middle being the progressed " War " chart, and the outer chart being Sept. 11, 2001 @ 8:45 AM EDT, NYC. Look at the charts collectively. Look at the aspects between various entities within defined parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > It is in my opinion unfortunate that discussions > on > > > this matter tend to center on the zodiacal > > > divisions, leaving aside the (to me) much more > > > important and practical differences in > astrological > > > timing. > > Indeed. > > Best, > Ed K > > Ed... Since you don't believe in the validity of " signage " why do you graphically illustrate your charts and web pages with their symbols? Jivio > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > > Er, why? There have been other transits of Pluto by > > the progressed > > Moon before last year's, and they also resulted in > > such an event? I > > think not. It may simply be a coincidence. I hope > > Juan R has sought > > other corresponding transits to this Pluto that > > would suggest that > > Boyd's chart is valid. > > > > Your point suggests looking at previous examples of > the progressed Moon conjuncting radical Pluto. I'm > sure it would produce interesting results. Why are you sure?? Have you done so already and found interesting results? Or, are you just sure for surety's sake? > The motivation of the paragraph was to encourage > readers to view a " tri-wheel " of three charts. > The center chart being the " War " chart, > the middle being the progressed " War " chart, and > the outer chart being Sept. 11, 2001 @ 8:45 AM EDT, > NYC. Look at the charts collectively. Look at the > aspects between various entities within defined > parameters. My experinece with the so called " Boyd " chat is that it is a bunch of nonsense, as you know because you surely have seen me say so hundreds of times. I see no reason to view this chart as the two events have no relevance to one another, direct or casual. Juan Revilla, who is otherwise a brilliant man, has fallen prey to the lies and untruths about the mundane relevance of this chart. Not only is it NOT a " war chart, " but the time for it has been lost to history, thus making any progressions or transits to it matters of dubious in nature. > Ed... Juan... > Since you don't believe in the validity of " signage " > why do you graphically illustrate your charts and web > pages with their symbols? One must illustrate what historical figures believed. I challenge you to find any part of my site where I advocate the using of signs in contemporary analysis. (Clue: You won't be able to.) - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , " Ed Kohout <crumpo@e...> " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > , Juan Oliver <jivio> > wrote: > > > > Er, why? There have been other transits of Pluto by > > > the progressed > > > Moon before last year's, and they also resulted in > > > such an event? I > > > think not. It may simply be a coincidence. I hope > > > Juan R has sought > > > other corresponding transits to this Pluto that > > > would suggest that > > > Boyd's chart is valid. > > > > > > > Your point suggests looking at previous examples of > > the progressed Moon conjuncting radical Pluto. I'm > > sure it would produce interesting results. > > > Why are you sure?? Call it a hunch... Have you done so already and found interesting > results? NO... I didn't... Or, are you just sure for surety's sake? NO... its just a hunch... > > > > > The motivation of the paragraph was to encourage > > readers to view a " tri-wheel " of three charts. > > The center chart being the " War " chart, > > the middle being the progressed " War " chart, and > > the outer chart being Sept. 11, 2001 @ 8:45 AM EDT, > > NYC. Look at the charts collectively. Look at the > > aspects between various entities within defined > > parameters. > > My experinece with the so called " Boyd " chat is that it is a bunch of > nonsense, as you know because you surely have seen me say so hundreds > of times. > Actually Ed I've learned not to pay too much attention to what you " write " on line. I just learned what your opinion on the Boyd chart is and really don't care or wish to discuss it with you. " you surely have seen me say so hundreds of times. " ya think? from the " king " who does what on himself? > I see no reason to view this chart as the two events have no > relevance to one another, direct or casual. sooo " all knowing " ... Lets see..relevance hmmmmmm, USA " War " chart and an attack on the USA chart.... Juan Revilla, who is > otherwise a brilliant man, has fallen prey to the lies and untruths > about the mundane relevance of this chart. ya think? maybe there is a conspiracy that the russians long ago devised a plan where cubans would enter costa rica and construct radio towers. Hidden in these towers were high frequencey devices which sent signals to only certain indentified as " brilliant " astrologers. " Prey " who would become programed in their sleep with " lies and untruths " . The russians knew that americans(norte) were influenced by Uranus and were suseptible to astrologers. It was a plan to eventually " brainwash " all of the americas... Not only is it NOT a " war > chart, " All one has to do is look at it and see Mars at the Asc. and you would know it couldn't possibly be a " War " chart.... but the time for it has been lost to history, thus making any > progressions or transits to it matters of dubious in nature. > > Of course...of course... rectification is impossible... its all a plot of dubious nature... leave it to history to decide... > > > > > Ed... > > > Juan... > > > > > Since you don't believe in the validity of " signage " > > why do you graphically illustrate your charts and web > > pages with their symbols? > > One must illustrate what historical figures believed. Huh? Why do you show charts(Joint Resolution 114, for example) with the zodiacal signs in them? You can demonstrate planetary inter- relationships without the " signage " . I saw zodiacal symbols everywhere on your site as though you were promoting their worth and value. I challenge > you to find any part of my site where I advocate the using of signs > in contemporary analysis. > If you don't advocate the signs you have a funny way of showing it. The least you can do is be open about it. Write up a statement to the effect that you do not advocate the use of the zodiac for the analysis of charts. Put these statements next to the symbols of the zodiac so readers will understand your " commitment to your ideals " . > (Clue: You won't be able to.) > ahhhh...dare I say.....clueless, absolutely clueless... > > - Ed K Jivio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , " jivio <jivio> " <jivio> wrote: Briefly.... > You can demonstrate planetary inter- > relationships without the " signage " . > I saw zodiacal symbols > everywhere on your site as though you > were promoting their worth and value. This is typical of why you cannot comprehend the complexities of astrology. Where have I said that it was wrong to use the zodiac as a measurement tool? Nowhere. It's how we communicate our craft. But, that's where it should end. You are misleading this group (again) by insinuating that I use " planet in sign " delineations in my analysis of charts. This is not true, unless I am trying to demonstrate what some other person was doing. > > I see no reason to view this chart as the two events have no > > relevance to one another, direct or casual. > > sooo " all knowing " ... Lets see..relevance hmmmmmm, > USA " War " chart and an attack on the USA chart.... Jivvvo, It's not a " war chart. " The _Declaration for the Causes and Necessities for Taking Up Arms_ was an attempt to explain to the monarchy why the colonies were resisting some of his goons. The fighting had begun months earlier, and the Continental Congress declared a state of hostilties on May 15, 1775. A chart for this date is more reasonable. > Juan Revilla, who is > > otherwise a brilliant man, has fallen prey to the lies and untruths > > about the mundane relevance of this chart. > > ya think? maybe there is a conspiracy that the russians long ago > devised a plan where cubans would enter costa rica and construct > radio towers. Hidden in these towers were high frequencey devices > which sent signals to only certain indentified as " brilliant " > astrologers. " Prey " who would become programed in their sleep > with " lies and untruths " . The russians knew that americans(norte) > were influenced by Uranus and were suseptible to astrologers. It was > a plan to eventually " brainwash " all of the americas... If this is supposed to be humor, don't quit your day job. It doesn't surprise me that you are one of those adherents to the Boyd nonsense. It fits your profile. > Not only is it NOT a " war > > chart, " > > All one has to do is look at it and see Mars at the Asc. and you > would know it couldn't possibly be a " War " chart.... This ascendant is from a rectification by a loony individual, but i suppose it works for you. > > > Since you don't believe in the validity of " signage " > > > why do you graphically illustrate your charts and web > > > pages with their symbols? > > > > One must illustrate what historical figures believed. > > Huh? Duh? > Why do you show charts(Joint Resolution 114, for example) with > the zodiacal signs in them? Would you rather I supply a wheel with the numbers 0,1,2,...359 on it? I don't want to confuse you. > I challenge > > you to find any part of my site where I advocate the using of signs > > in contemporary analysis. > > > > If you don't advocate the signs you have a funny way of showing it. > The least you can do is be open about it. Write up a statement to the > effect that you do not advocate the use of the zodiac for the > analysis of charts. Put these statements next to the symbols of the > zodiac so readers will understand your " commitment to your ideals " . LOL!!! If this is your biggest problem with the site, either you don't understand it or you haven't read any of it. > ahhhh...dare I say.....clueless, absolutely clueless... Right, more typical Jiv nonsense. You show such a lack of decent character at times, and it's becoming predictable. Jivio has nothing of value to say?? Jivio use the ad hominem!! That will show 'em that Jivio is superior!! > > - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.