Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat

Chat For posts that don't have to do with astrological chart interpretation, but they're still important to you. Gossip, show off, hot topic, spiritual thoughts, Sun sign astrological discussions, chit chat: come in and share!


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 12-07-2010, 01:56 AM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 07.Re
In keeping with the spirit of openness that has enveloped the forum of late, this could well be a good time to encourage participation between modern and traditional astrologers (sans spears though)
The majority of astrologers are divided between "modern" and "traditional"...

What can both "sects" () learn from each other? We know the differences; what are the similarities?

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 12-07-2010, 12:33 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire19
I dont use "traditional" astrology for the very fact that it is often so negative and narrow.....
Can you elaborate on how you see it as "negative and narrow"?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 12-07-2010, 12:34 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50
Traditional astrologers using ancient outdated information (unproven) that hardly seems relevant in a modern world
How is it outdated? Unproven? How is modern astrology "proven"? Why doesn't it seem relevant?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 12-07-2010, 12:41 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by piercethevale
[... There are a great deal of techniques in Astrology, that are overly complex, quite old and yet, after many centuries {even millenia}, still haven't proven themselves to any degree of irrefutability....Just because it's old doesn't necessarily mean it should be revered....I mean, think about it...How long did 'cupping' and 'blood letting' go on before the techniques were finally admitted to as being 'bogus'?...until just a few years ago smoking was favored in hospitals because tobacco smoke was concidered to be a gemicidal!]
Isn't complexity subjective? How have modern techniques proven themselves irrefutable? I agree, old does not always equal important, but does that mean new always has to equal important?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 12-07-2010, 12:47 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas-trine-Mars
1. Bounds/terms aren't natural, they're contrived dignities that are entirely man-made and only made for the traditional planets. Different cultures just decided which planets they thought were more dignified where and said "ok, this planet is really good in this sign, so it gets terms at an earlier degree than that other planet, and it'll have more too," it's patent nonsense that has doesn't work with logic or order. There are other sign division dignities I like, but bounds aren't one I give much credit to.
How are any other dignities natural? What part of astrology isn't man-made? [You might do well to research the history of the bounds; they are based on the greater years of the planets, which are in turn based on the synodic (I believe) cycles of the planets.] In what ways is astrology logical and ordered?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 12-07-2010, 05:48 PM
ImNotThere9's Avatar
ImNotThere9 ImNotThere9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 631
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

----------------
__________________
Astra inclinant, sed non obligant - Latin proverb.


'...Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.' Shakespeare.

Last edited by ImNotThere9; 02-24-2011 at 01:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:00 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivia
Wow. Nobody on that thread had a clue what traditional astrology is, or why it is, or how it works. Or if they did, they opted not to share that understanding.
So maybe we can help people new to astrology learn more about it's roots. I think we're (traditionalists) always going to be in the minority, but that doesn't mean we can't try to share our knowledge with others, and defend ourselves in arguments.

Last edited by eternalautumn; 12-07-2010 at 08:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:06 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivia
Even posts on the late and much lamented Education Board that were traditional in nature were roundly lambasted as 'wrong, irrelevant, stupid, we have superior ways of doing astrology now'
Why do people feel modern astrology is superior to traditional?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:07 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivia
Unless modern astrologers want to educate themselves in traditional astrology first
Would any modern astrologers be willing to read an article or two on traditional astrology and then debate?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:08 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivia
Traditional astrologers know modern astrology, it's where most of us started out and spent a decade or three. But the same isn't true the other way round - moderns don't read traditionalist works - they read a sentence or a paragraph in a modern book about the 'bad old days' and that's pretty much it.
This is true, and unfortunate. Is it really fair to dismiss an entire system without giving it thorough review?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Georgia, US
Posts: 1,428
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

In choosing between any two schools of thought, I'm not aware of a single instance in which either one can be completely correct. It is a reasonable presumption that both traditional and modern astrology are flawed in their own ways. This is why both must be used as inspiration to direct new scientific research. If astrology is Truth, then the study of it can be made into a discipline of science.

This approach is what gives me information that nobody wants to hear, such as a system of 34 aspects in which each has its own orb. I can support this system mathematically and astrologically. If one would approach the study of aspects the way I have, then anyone would find the same information. I make this a matter of evidence and reason, regardless of what anyone may want it to be. Always remember that the greatest obstacle to learning is what you think you already know.
__________________
http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/
Free Astrological Tools, Calculators, and Ephemerides
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:31 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
i think that traditional astrology is just as accurate and valid, but you can't ignore new planets and information. The main issue i have is that the outermost planets (ya pluto not a planet... whatever) make so much more sense as the "rulers" of thier respective signs. It's amazing that some astrologers ignore or belittle this, but i can see why they are more comfortable with the time tested approach.
I don't think anyone ignores the outer planets; some people just give them different meaning than others. We are more comfortable with the time-tested approach because we have ca. 2110 years of "proof" that Saturn and Mars rule Aquarius and Scorpio respectively, yet modern astrologers have 230 and 80 years, respectively, since Uranus and Pluto have been discovered, and they have already decided that they rule a sign, and what their essential nature is. Can you see why a logically thinking person would choose to study only the traditional seven planets? Maybe in 2000 more years we will understand the outer planets, but until then, it's hard for people to just blindly accept what "they" say they mean.

We've only observed about 30% of Pluto's travel through the Zodiac since it's discovery... Doesn't that hold any significance?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:38 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdinaz
That's exactly what I think - if the planet wasn't known, it essentially did not exist. And their discoveries exactly mirrors our own evolution as people and cultures. Think back - as cavemen, we knew two planets - sun and moon. That's it. And life was essentially focused on that - "Am I alive? Do I feel pain?", and that's about it. There were no thoughts about "why am I here", "what's my career path" - the only thoughts were "eat, sleep, don't bleed, and make little cave children".
As the ancients discovered other planets, life evolved. Venus and Mars, cities and trade grew. Jupiter - philosophies, religions, reasons for life. Saturn - governments, large states and nations, big business. And there life stalled, for two thousand years. Once Uranus came around, things changed rapidly. Radical political thoughts - wars over ideas rather than property. Neptune - science, medical discoveries, drugs. Pluto - radical ideas that challenged the supremacy of religion and the Church, people taking claims about who THEY were, apart from a nation or town. When the planets didn't exist, the ideas didn't exist; I think it follows very well.
[Just borrowing a post from the thread EJ linked to.]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:40 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaer
First, consider the term "modern" astrology. What does it mean? And traditional astrology: same question. What does that mean?

Studying the history of astrology and what has gone before will surely enrich your knowledge, period.

The traditional rulership linking planets and signs assumed that all planets had two "sides", a masculine and feminine side. Only the Sun and Moon were exempted from this. So seven planets, five connected to two signs.

Now, consider Saturn. We tend to have a very limited idea of what Saturn represents today. We consider mostly the feminine side, linked to Capricorn. So we associate Saturn with lessons, limitations, hard lessons, restrictions.

But think beyond that. First, think of how Saturn operates in easy aspect to other planets. What does Saturn trine Mercury show? A limited mind? Or one that, through discipline, may be capable of going on to completely uncharted territory? If Saturn is trine Jupiter, does it mean that Jupiter is less expansive, less generous? Or more in control, more balanced?

When you think of Aquarius, do you think of flakes, weirdness, eccentricity? Or of freedom controlled through discipline/wisdom and focused to get something done, perhaps something new that works?

The idea that Aquarius is linked with eccentricity and weirdness is a relatively new idea, and I think a very wrong one. I would argue, for the same reason, that IF Uranus resonates with the energy of Aquarius, and I think it does, our concept of Uranus is equally flawed.

I have Mercury trine Aquarius, both sextile Saturn. You and others have read my posts. Am I tradiational? Modern? Or am I looking for solutions that bring the best of both ideas together?

Obviously the latter. I don't accept every idea that has been, in my opinion, sometimes blindly accepted simply because astrologer A or B declared it so. I'm going to test things (this is part of Saturn too, find the limitations), but I'm going to go wherever my ideas lead me (freedom), which you may associate with Uranus. So I see no problem whatsoever in seriously thinking about how Saturn relates to Aquarius.

Gaer
[Ditto...]
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:50 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc
This discussion is an interesting case of a modern interpretation vs. a traditional interpretation. The modern interpretation attempts to use every planet in the chart from the point of view in how it personally interacts with the person's psychological makeup. So the modern astrological view is to look at what does the sign, planet, and house do for every planet as an indication of the psychological reality of that person.
[Ditto...{as in, borrowed from the older thread...}]

{My reply:} And I would counter that the traditional "reading" attempts to delineate every planet in the chart from the point of view of how it personally interacts with a person's entire physical, mental, and spiritual life, throughout their whole lifetime.{i.e. physical events, relationships, etc., with many things delineated to occur within a definite time range.}

Is one better than the other? Do both have merits?

Last edited by eternalautumn; 12-07-2010 at 09:32 PM. Reason: to make it more understandable for a certain member.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 12-07-2010, 08:56 PM
Nexus7's Avatar
Nexus7 Nexus7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Budapest, Hungary.
Posts: 984
Send a message via MSN to Nexus7
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Well I think it is more important to be thinking about the emerging astrology of the future!

I find the traditional approach rather dry, but do not care for the underpinning philosophy of the moderns - I am, nor ever will be, either theosophical or esoteric material now. But if that is what other groupshere feel theneed to explore, then that is their prerogative, just as it is may be the prerogative of others to follow their brand of astrology.

Meanwhile, Geoffrey Dean and Dawkins may be getting the last laugh if the astrologers cannot find a way to engage a dialogue with the mainstream world view.

I think it is question of rethinking astrology in the light of all the new discoveries taking place in the solar system, the post-modernist critiques coming from the research of Phillipson, Curry, Cornelius, Harding, and Hillman et.al.

That's my POV anyway.

Last edited by Nexus7; 12-07-2010 at 09:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 12-07-2010, 09:09 PM
Skillcoil's Avatar
Skillcoil Skillcoil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 301
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

I think astrology is still a work in progress. There could be accurate information from both traditional and modern, but it's not flawless. If there was a guaranteed method of astrology, wouldn't we all be using it and making a great profit from it? I still have a lot to learn about astrology, but with any technique, if it works it works, and if it isn't working completely well, it should be further improved.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 12-07-2010, 09:26 PM
eternalautumn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivia
Neither view is traditional. If you're going to go this route and claim that it's traditional, I suggest you cite your sources, author, book, publisher (if possible) and page number.
It is my understanding that traditional astrology attempts to show every aspect of a person's life (as far as the houses define), not just the "psychological"... If you don't agree with that, then ... you don't agree. I'm confident in that definition and don't feel the need to cite a reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillcoil
I think astrology is still a work in progress. There could be accurate information from both traditional and modern, but it's not flawless. If there was a guaranteed method of astrology, wouldn't we all be using it and making a great profit from it? I still have a lot to learn about astrology, but with any technique, if it works it works, and if it isn't working completely well, it should be further improved.
I agree with you for the most part. However, would you expect to profit more from a system that has been "successful" for two thousand years, or one that has been "successful" for two hundred years? That doesn't make total sense, but I think you can see what I mean.

Regardless, why is studying the past a bad thing? In what other field do people not benefit from studying the past techniques and philosophy? Why are modern astrologers so reluctant to simply give traditional astrology a chance?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 12-07-2010, 10:08 PM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 736
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Whilst I have a very strong affinity with Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance, Elizabethan, and Restoration era astrologies (which most people would incorrectly lump together as "traditional astrology"), I'm also conversant with modern techniques and methods.

In most of my lectures, I explain that if it were biologically and temporally possible, I'd be the illegitimate (the filter didn't like the "b" word) son of William Lilly and Reinhold Ebertin. Many people would agree - but leave out the part about Lilly and Ebertin.

If you read the latest work on Hellenistic astrology, you’ll find that Robert Schmidt now believes that Hellenistic astrology (from which all Western astrology derives – we’ll leave out the possibility of transmission to the Vedics for now) is actually a logical construct – that it was created by one person, and then modified and enhanced (and possibly debased) by later Hellenistic astrologers – plus those who came along later.

Students of other subjects don’t skip over the origins, development, history of their subjects – why should astrologers? Philosophy students don’t jump right into Schopenhauer, Hegel, and Nietzsche – they start with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. English Literature students don’t ignore Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton and study only Joyce, James and Pynchon.

It behooves astrologers of all skill levels to study and understand the origin, tradition, and history of our subject – if only to understand why they are doing things the things they do. Limiting oneself to a narrow view with “modern” or “traditional” blinders does both a disservice to oneself and to the study of astrology in general.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

Last edited by Frank; 12-07-2010 at 10:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank For This Useful Post:
poyi (08-15-2013)
  #20  
Unread 12-07-2010, 10:30 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,687
studying traditional methods, to Frank

Frank,

You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
It behooves astrologers of all skill levels to study and understand the origin, tradition, and history of our subject – if only to understand why they are doing things the things they do. Limiting oneself to a narrow view with “modern” or “traditional” blinders does both a disservice to oneself and to the study of astrology in general.
This, I think, most people can agree with. Whether or not you are a student of "traditional" or modern astrology, it IS important to at least be familiar with the other method. That way you can make an educated decision as to which method works best for the astrology you are trying to do, and for what you are trying to get out of astrology.

Agreeing,

Tim
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/

Last edited by wilsontc; 12-07-2010 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 12-07-2010, 10:39 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,283
Re: studying traditional methods, to Frank

Good and bad astrology exists in any division. So I think the argument has to get more fine-grained than a simplistic modern vs. traditional binary. Throughout the ages, when traditional astrology was the only type practiced, authors complained about schlock astrologers who gave their discipline a bad name. By the same token, I just read two "modern" articles on the Astrodienst website about the moon, articles apparently comissioned by Astrodienst. There was little real discussion of the moon from any kind of intellectual perspective. The articles were so inane I just cringed.

I would really like to see both modern and traditional astrologers come together, and build barriers rather than bridges. But the bridges need to build on the best of what each side has to offer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 12-07-2010, 10:58 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,687
a difference of purpose, to autumn

autumn,

You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalautumn View Post
The majority of astrologers are divided between "modern" and "traditional"...What can both "sects" () learn from each other? We know the differences; what are the similarities?
I think there is a basic difference of approach to astrology between the two.

Traditional astrology is about predicting what absolutely IS going to happen. Bob Zemco in his footer has an excellent example of this, describing how traditional astrology is able to accurately predict who is a serial killer. From the point of view of traditional astrology, there is very little room for "free will"...it's all indicated in the chart and the only thing a person can do is to learn about it from an astrologer. And even learning about it won't help to change it. As Bob says in another posting, the only "free will" he has is in switching to a different phone carrier...and another traditionalist might add even THAT is not up to Bob's free will...it's just we aren't good enough astrologers to see the "phone carrier" indications in Bob's chart. So when a traditional astrologer sees a modern interpretation, they judge it based on how well it can predict things...and modern astrology (in general) is not good at accurate predicting.

Modern astrology is about giving choices and giving the person more information about the situation. The goal is to find different ways to solve the same problem, so the person has several choices of solutions for their problem. Instead of finding the "one right answer", it's about finding out all the possibilities and leaving it up to the person themselves to choose. A modern astrologer would like to believe that, if they could have informed the potential serial killers about all the problems they might have in their life, that they could help them to find a better, more productive, non-violent way to use their energy in their life. A modern astrologer is always looking for a way to help a person OUT of their problems. So when a modern astrologer sees a traditional interpretation, they judge it based on how many choices it offers...and traditional astrology (in general) is not good at giving people choices.

So there is a fundamental difference between the two. Traditional astrology is about finding the RIGHT answer, while modern astrology is find out MANY answers. And since the goals are so very different, quite often the two clash when they come up against each other.

About the two astrologies,

Tim
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 12-07-2010, 11:21 PM
Frank's Avatar
Frank Frank is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Posts: 736
Send a message via Yahoo to Frank
Re: a difference of purpose, to autumn

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
So there is a fundamental difference between the two. Traditional astrology is about finding the RIGHT answer, while modern astrology is find out MANY answers. And since the goals are so very different, quite often the two clash when they come up against each other.
I'm not quite sure you are making the correct distinction here. Remember that horary, electional, event, and mundane astrology can all be practiced using either a "modern" or "traditional" techniques (I use the quotation marks because I feel the "modern vs. traditional" is not a precise dichotomy).

"Modern" astrologers who do horary, electional, predictive, etc. work are looking for the RIGHT answer - as are "traditional" astrologers. When counseling a client on their natal chart and its potential, there are MANY answers - depending on the chart itself.

Perhaps you are conflating "modern" astrology with psychological or evolutionary astrology? Those designations are not synonymous.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 12-07-2010, 11:44 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,283
Re: a difference of purpose, to autumn

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
autumn,

You said:


I think there is a basic difference of approach to astrology between the two.

Traditional astrology is about predicting what absolutely IS going to happen. ....


Modern astrology is about giving choices and giving the person more information about the situation. ....

So there is a fundamental difference between the two. Traditional astrology is about finding the RIGHT answer, while modern astrology is find out MANY answers. And since the goals are so very different, quite often the two clash when they come up against each other.

About the two astrologies,

Tim
Tim, I don't think this distinction is accurate. For one thing, in the West, the traditional astrologers of yore came through a Christian tradition that emphasized "free will" or moral choice. Remember: "the stars impel, but they do not compel"?

Moreover, I have read highly deterministic modern astrologers, like Robert Pelletier.

The difference that I see is more one of technique. Do you use the outer planets? Probably you're a modern astrologer. Do you judge planets' terms, faces, and exaltations? Probably you're a traditional astrologer.

It is really important not to paint one side as unreasonable, and the other side as more helpful and sensible. This is how arguments get started.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 12-08-2010, 03:24 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,283
Re: Tradition + Modernization = ?

Nicolas Campion, A History of Astrology, vol II. Has some interesting things to say about the problem of astrological determinism vs. moral choice amongst traditional astrologers of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. A classical legacy from many (although not all) ancient astrologers was astrological stoicism: the stars did "compel", but by learning astrology, one could predict one's fate (or perform this service for others), thereby making them more mentally prepared for the future. Ptolemy, in Tetrabiblos (the grandaddy of traditional astrology texts) took a far more nuanced approach, and talked about circumstances that mitigated stellar influences, as well as human agency.

The Catholic church had an on-again off-again relationship with astrology. When it did not condemn it outright, it insisted on human moral agency. (Some call this "free will" although I think that term is a misnomer.) So the idea that "the stars impel but they do not compel" is that stellar influences set up certain circumstances, but humans also have moral choices to make. Making an ethical choice or a judicious course of action can help to neutralize stellar influences. An example would be William Lilly's (Christian Astrology) accounts of the various electional and horary charts he constructed, and how he used them to advise clients on good courses of action. In these examples, traditional astrology cannot and does not "predict what absolutely is going to happen."

I actually do not believe that others on this thread truly believe every move they make is predetermined by stellar influences. This would reduce human beings to the status of robots and wind-up toys. Even the act of mentally preparing for a dire forecast event suggests that people have some choices to make which will ameliorate their experience of the event.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, even statistical studies of astrology and human behaviour operate in the realm of statistics and probabilities, not 100% certainties. If they could, Wall Street, the insurance companies, and your MD need to hear about these infallible predictive techniques!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ruler of Salt and Fats and other foods AquarianEssence Medical Astrology 7 05-22-2007 01:56 PM



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.