Fixed stars in a natal chart

Thank you for your kind replies.
Mark, I would say that even in astrology there are rules and if we don't follow them then no one is on the same page My reference was to the threads by the moderators and the rules in this forum, and of course my own natural inclination, though I am apt to reject many rules in life that strike me as simply oppressive power-plays or just downright idiotic.

Dr. Farr, than you for that point of view. I will absolutely read the resources you mentioned and check out skyscript as well.

I understand your comment about the Brady parans, but I am left wondering if those are the same as the other .pdfs that I linked (M>2 etc.) because there is one that is titled "Brady parans" and the others are not.

So - even while I am reading Robson right now, I am still unclear as to whether one would use the true angles, ecliptical or angles in the house circle? As I pointed out originally, using one, there are no stars in conjunction to my sun, using another there is, hence my awesome confusion! That is the specific answer I am seeking here. Once I know that I can proceed, hopefully, I think.

Robson, Morse, Alvidas, Pearce, Noonan, and others in the tradition relating to stellar delineation which I follow, delineate relative to ecliptic longitude, declination or angles in the house circle. Also note that the original paran rules and methods of the ancients (up to early enlightenment times) were different in a number of significant ways, than Brady's applications (hence the special listing of "Brady parans")-this issue is specifically discussed in one of the fixed star threads on skyscript (I forget which at the moment) Concepts of heliacal rising of stars, co-risings with Sun, etc, were important historically-special stellar risings were integral in the most ancient Egyptian star science-but so little of real value remains from this ancient science, that its really hard to know the implications of such risings and settings-I wish we did! So there is a lot more speculation regarding parans, etc, than there is in the delineation of star meanings through conjunction/parallel connections...

Skillcoil said:

What if the ruling planets of important fixed stars in a chart are retrograde and connected through aspects?

Click to expand...

a) no planet can "rule" a fixed star; if a star is in a SIGN, for example, Algol in Taurus, the planetary ruler of the SIGN (in this example, Venus) would NOT be considered as the "ruler" of Algol (actually planets don't "rule" even signs-they are domiciled in signs-at home in signs-and over time the words "ruler" or "lord" of the planet's domicile began to be used, and continues so to the present time)

b) some believe the rx status of a planet in conjunction or parallel with a star makes that planet more susceptible to the star's influence; however, I myself do not take the rx or direct state of the planet into account when delineating the influence of the stellar connection with that planet, nor have I read about this in authorities like Alvidas, Pearce, Noonan, Robson, or among the (translated) Arabic astrological sources I have access to

c) the net influence upon a planet (based upon its sign placement, degree occupied and any longitudinal or declinational conjunction/parallel it might have with a given star) all modify the quality of the aspectual effect of that planet with another planet (or other horoscopic point)