Guest guest Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 At 03:51 AM 4/27/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >It is also absurd to boast that siderealists are more intellecutally >astute and curious than other astrologers, and therefore somehow of >greater value. That kind of reasoning is dangerous. Ed, we just know where it's at, that's all!! You set up your first astrological chart in 1996, right? Some of us on this board go back a lot further. We worked with the Tropical zodiac for many years before being forced to change through our own studies. We didn't change because a certain sign was supposed to mean something. We changed because we saw that using a zodiac that precessed threw off the calculations over time. And we also noted that the rulerships most certainly didn't work in the Tropical zodiac. Rob Hand says as much himself and he's strictly a Tropical astrologer. But with extreme charts (like that of Queen Victoria), it's possible to make a case for sidereal rulerships. Since you are a mundane astrologer, it's quite possible that you've missed the significance of the zodiac, which seems to work mainly for individuals. Therese 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.