Which of the 13 zodiac signs are you? - Page 2

Rickypt · #16 05-16-2006, 11:12 AM

Whoa, I just became an Aries. Which explains why my first relationship, with an Aries, didn't work out.

chiliD · #17 05-16-2006, 11:19 AM

I WAS right on the Pisces/Aries cusp...this makes me a full-on Pisces...not sure I really LIKE that idea/fact/theory.

GypsySorcerer · #18 05-16-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

A-ha! A fellow water sign! I feel like we share a lot of the same opinions, this makes total sense.

Yep! There is no way you're a Libra, either.

golddustwoman77 · #19 05-16-2006, 11:34 AM

I'm a Scorpio, but according to this I'm a Libra.

Nixxxed · #20 05-16-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason T.

Scorpio: November 23 - November 29

Where did you get this? I don't understand how can the "new" Scorpio can only be 6 days long when everything else is nearly a month - and I'd like to learn more before I start calling myself a Cancer (

) instead of a Leo.

Jason T. · #21 05-16-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

Where did you get this? I don't understand how can the "new" Scorpio can only be 6 days long when everything else is nearly a month - and I'd like to learn more before I start calling myself a Cancer (

) instead of a Leo.

It's right - the amount of time that the Sun spends in Scorpio has decreased so much over the years that it only lasts 6.5 days.

I understand why some people don't like to acknowledge this chart; for example, it places a lot of Virgos I know into Leos -- which doesn't fit them at all. Granted, I personally believe that traits shift as well -- but these set of dates are the true signs under which we were born.

The more unknown sign, Ophiuchus, was not always in play until about 2000 years ago. Anyway, just so y'all know that I'm not completely making this up...here you go:

http://aquarianmysteries.com/ophiuchus2.html
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyco.../ophiuchus.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...liumstream.htm

Nixxxed · #22 05-16-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason T.

It's right - the amount of time that the Sun spends in Scorpio has decreased so much over the years that it only lasts 6.5 days.

I understand why some people don't like to acknowledge this chart; for example, it places a lot of Virgos I know into Leos -- which doesn't fit them at all. Granted, I personally believe that traits shift as well -- but these set of dates are the true signs under which we were born.

The more unknown sign, Ophiuchus, was not always in play until about 2000 years ago. Anyway, just so y'all know that I'm not completely making this up...here you go:

http://aquarianmysteries.com/ophiuchus2.html
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyco.../ophiuchus.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...liumstream.htm

Thanks! This fascinates me, and I look forward to reading more.

I hope it didn't come across that I was accusing you of making this up. It's just a little shocking. I'm somewhat of an astrology follower (just for fun), and I've never heard of this. I guess the first website you posted is correct when it says:

"To acknowledge a 13th sign now would seem awkward for astrologers, who like the tidiness of '12 signs' that rule over the 12 houses of the Zodiac."

amber · #23 05-16-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

Thanks! This fascinates me, and I look forward to reading more.

I hope it didn't come across that I was accusing you of making this up. It's just a little shocking. I'm somewhat of an astrology follower (just for fun), and I've never heard of this. I guess the first website you posted is correct when it says:

"To acknowledge a 13th sign now would seem awkward for astrologers, who like the tidiness of '12 signs' that rule over the 12 houses of the Zodiac."

Don't worry, this isn't actually correct. I read a big long article on why, which I don't have at hand, but which I could probably find on stariq.com. Not so much about the 13th sign, but about the issue of "the planets aren't in the same place as when astrology was invented."
So, I think this is mainly a load of bull. I'll try to find the article.

Jason T. · #24 05-16-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

Thanks! This fascinates me, and I look forward to reading more.

I hope it didn't come across that I was accusing you of making this up. It's just a little shocking. I'm somewhat of an astrology follower (just for fun), and I've never heard of this. I guess the first website you posted is correct when it says:

"To acknowledge a 13th sign now would seem awkward for astrologers, who like the tidiness of '12 signs' that rule over the 12 houses of the Zodiac."

Not at all, I was in a state of shock when I first heard about it.

I love Astrology too, and even though I believe that it is better to go by the real positions of the stars (it is what the entire science is based off), I'm still reluctant to accept the new chart.

Jason T. · #25 05-16-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

Don't worry, this isn't actually correct. I read a big long article on why, which I don't have at hand, but which I could probably find on stariq.com. Not so much about the 13th sign, but about the issue of "the planets aren't in the same place as when astrology was invented."
So, I think this is mainly a load of bull. I'll try to find the article.

I think the article you're talking about is on astrology.com, but the position of the planets wouldn't really affect the constellations in our skies.