Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: stars into new signs

Expand Messages
  • msbhavens1
    2000 would actually be the end of the old century, the new century would be 2001. well if you are using base 10 years anyway. and new century for whom, I mean
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      2000 would actually be the end of the old century, the new century
      would be 2001. well if you are using base 10 years anyway.

      and new century for whom, I mean you really need tp put it perspective
      I would think, else its just a date and reflects what is going on at
      the moment, I would think???

      MissB

      --- In thefixedstars@yahoogroups.com, "Astrocalypse"
      <astrocalypse@...> wrote:
      >
      > stars into new signs----- Original Message -----
      > From: Martina
      >
      > Hmmm. Anyone tried using the Century charts as a baseline for
      events?? Or is that just dumb?
      > Martina
      >
      >
      > Hmmm. I guess the Century chart IS a birth chart. Like all birth
      charts, rarely do they manifest the 'natal promises' straight away.
      So, I guess prediction based on it is possible. As in all Mundane
      charts, progression to fixed stars is certainly one of the first
      things to watch out for sure !
      >
    • msbhavens1
      WEll the family theory at my house is that it was a government sponsored Project and they ran out of funding when they got to 2012, so they said the end Not
      Message 2 of 25 , Jun 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        WEll the family theory at my house is that it was a government
        sponsored Project and they ran out of funding when they got to 2012,
        so they said "the end"

        Not ot mention, life may have started to get exciting for them at
        that time, so to speak and they may have had their personal survivla
        a bit more in mind than doing further work on the calendar.

        well just a couple of thoughts, well one more... just how far into
        the future do you think an astrologer ought to look? I mean really
        coherant answers start to blur after a while. Look at Nostrodamus
        predictions, the further away from his time they went the more fuzzy
        and variable they become.

        okay enough smart alec remarks from me. MissB



        --- In thefixedstars@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Reveres" <l_awake_l@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > >
        > >Regulus is the last royal star in a fixed sign, and will be
        mutable in 2012
        >
        > I'm not so much into the New Age scene, but here again we have the
        number
        > 2012 showing up. What an interesting year that is going to be.
        > While we are on the subject-- and don't think I'm a hypocrite fro
        asking
        > this- I have always been curious as to how 2012 is supposed to be
        an
        > alignment of stars with the Galactic Center. I've heard this but
        could
        > never quite find a chart that supports this. That was before I was
        into
        > Declinations tho. Has anyone done any research as to why the
        Mayans were
        > convinced 2012 was the end of the world?
        >
      • Astrocalypse
        stars into new signsIt was true that the ancient didn t have the concept of year zero, but they did know about the 10s, 100s and 1000s. Did they not ? So year
        Message 3 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          stars into new signs
          It was true that the ancient didn't have the concept of year zero, but they did know about the 10s, 100s and 1000s.  Did they not ?
           
          So year 2000 is valid because we didn't jump from 1999 to 2001 and skip 2000 all together (and the babies born on 2000 do exist!).  So year 1999 finished on midnight, zero hour, zero minute, zero second and year 2000 started on zero hour, zero minute, the first second ...
           
          Just mho.
           
          Cal
           
        • Astrocalypse
          stars into new signsI agree with you Martina. And I think mixing different concepts could be very confusing. Some Chinese used to think (not any more for
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            stars into new signs
            I agree with you Martina.  And I think mixing different concepts could be very confusing.
             
            Some Chinese used to think (not any more for most) when the baby is born, it is one year old (my rationale is to count the baby as existing in the womb). So when it is one year old (western way), it is "two".
             
            Much like the Sabian Symbols.  Are you going for the actual ? or symbolic.
             
            Cal
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Martina
             
            2000 would be year 0, like the birth of a baby. The baby still exists before its first birthday. Thats how I see it anyways. I don' t think it matters that there was no year 0,... its locked into our brains that the end of the 20th C was 1999.
          • msbhavens1
            if you have 0, this is how it looks and this is how I normally count 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 however since they did the
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              if you have 0, this is how it looks and this is how I normally count

              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
              10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

              however since they did the years without 0 its counted this way.
              .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 10
              11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

              I'm hoping the spacing holds so you can see what up.

              MissB


              --- In thefixedstars@yahoogroups.com, "Astrocalypse"
              <astrocalypse@...> wrote:
              >
              > stars into new signsIt was true that the ancient didn't have the
              concept of year zero, but they did know about the 10s, 100s and
              1000s. Did they not ?
              >
              > So year 2000 is valid because we didn't jump from 1999 to 2001 and
              skip 2000 all together (and the babies born on 2000 do exist!). So
              year 1999 finished on midnight, zero hour, zero minute, zero second
              and year 2000 started on zero hour, zero minute, the first second ...
              >
              > Just mho.
              >
              > Cal
              >
            • Shawhouse
              I read an excellent article in Mountain Astrologer some months ago. I suggest you look in their online archives for research in addition to what you learn
              Message 6 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I read an excellent article in Mountain Astrologer some months ago. I
                suggest you look in their online archives for research in addition to
                what you learn from this list.
                Diana Shaw

                Derek Reveres wrote:

                >
                > >
                > >Regulus is the last royal star in a fixed sign, and will be mutable
                > in 2012
                >
                > I'm not so much into the New Age scene, but here again we have the number
                > 2012 showing up. What an interesting year that is going to be.
                > While we are on the subject-- and don't think I'm a hypocrite fro asking
                > this- I have always been curious as to how 2012 is supposed to be an
                > alignment of stars with the Galactic Center. I've heard this but could
                > never quite find a chart that supports this. That was before I was into
                > Declinations tho. Has anyone done any research as to why the Mayans were
                > convinced 2012 was the end of the world?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > SPONSORED LINKS
                > Symbols
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Symbols&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=8UQdunpL-0xnc9agDnYz0A>
                > Astrology
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astrology&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=cFBE2oA0lZJyqpA8zdjwVQ>
                > Divination
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Divination&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=HD6p_AsnSWzyaHzKvQ9oIQ>
                >
                > Ophiuchus
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ophiuchus&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=JoliRs5e4i8g3hETE--b2A>
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >
                > * Visit your group "thefixedstars
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefixedstars>" on the web.
                >
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                >
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
              • Shawhouse
                I ve read the arguments that postulate 2001 was the beginning of the new millenium, but it just doesn t grok with me. The year 1 was the conclusion of the
                Message 7 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I've read the arguments that postulate 2001 was the beginning of the new
                  millenium, but it just doesn't grok with me. The year 1 was the
                  conclusion of the first 12 months of this system, culminating in the
                  completion of the first year, not the beginning of the first year.
                  Therefore, January 1, 2001 would have been the conclusion of 2001 years
                  of the system, right? 2000 would have been the conclusion of 2000 years
                  of the AD system. Logicially, 2000 should thus be the inauguration date
                  of a new millenium, but this is also intuitive. From a numerological
                  perspective, its the first time "2" is used.
                  Diana Shaw

                  Astrocalypse wrote:

                  > It was true that the ancient didn't have the concept of year zero, but
                  > they did know about the 10s, 100s and 1000s. Did they not ?
                  >
                  > So year 2000 is valid because we didn't jump from 1999 to 2001 and
                  > skip 2000 all together (and the babies born on 2000 do exist!). So
                  > year 1999 finished on midnight, zero hour, zero minute, zero second
                  > and year 2000 started on zero hour, zero minute, the first second ...
                  >
                  > Just mho.
                  >
                  > Cal
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > SPONSORED LINKS
                  > Symbols
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Symbols&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=8UQdunpL-0xnc9agDnYz0A>
                  > Astrology
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astrology&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=cFBE2oA0lZJyqpA8zdjwVQ>
                  > Divination
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Divination&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=HD6p_AsnSWzyaHzKvQ9oIQ>
                  >
                  > Ophiuchus
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ophiuchus&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=JoliRs5e4i8g3hETE--b2A>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > * Visit your group "thefixedstars
                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefixedstars>" on the web.
                  >
                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > <mailto:thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                  >
                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                • Mark Andrew Holmes
                  2001 may be counterintuitive, but it s accurate, for those who use the Gregorian calendar, which is pretty much accepted the world over. Then again, there s
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    2001 may be counterintuitive, but it's accurate, for
                    those who use the Gregorian calendar, which is pretty
                    much accepted the world over.

                    Then again, there's this thing about 2000 that people
                    have. So maybe both of them can be used.

                    Mark A. Holmes

                    --- Shawhouse <shawhouse@...> wrote:

                    > I've read the arguments that postulate 2001 was the
                    > beginning of the new
                    > millenium, but it just doesn't grok with me. The
                    > year 1 was the
                    > conclusion of the first 12 months of this system,
                    > culminating in the
                    > completion of the first year, not the beginning of
                    > the first year.
                    > Therefore, January 1, 2001 would have been the
                    > conclusion of 2001 years
                    > of the system, right? 2000 would have been the
                    > conclusion of 2000 years
                    > of the AD system. Logicially, 2000 should thus be
                    > the inauguration date
                    > of a new millenium, but this is also intuitive.
                    > From a numerological
                    > perspective, its the first time "2" is used.
                    > Diana Shaw
                    >
                    > Astrocalypse wrote:
                    >
                    > > It was true that the ancient didn't have the
                    > concept of year zero, but
                    > > they did know about the 10s, 100s and 1000s. Did
                    > they not ?
                    > >
                    > > So year 2000 is valid because we didn't jump from
                    > 1999 to 2001 and
                    > > skip 2000 all together (and the babies born on
                    > 2000 do exist!). So
                    > > year 1999 finished on midnight, zero hour, zero
                    > minute, zero second
                    > > and year 2000 started on zero hour, zero minute,
                    > the first second ...
                    > >
                    > > Just mho.
                    > >
                    > > Cal
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > SPONSORED LINKS
                    > > Symbols
                    > >
                    >
                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Symbols&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=8UQdunpL-0xnc9agDnYz0A>
                    >
                    > > Astrology
                    > >
                    >
                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astrology&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=cFBE2oA0lZJyqpA8zdjwVQ>
                    >
                    > > Divination
                    > >
                    >
                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Divination&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=HD6p_AsnSWzyaHzKvQ9oIQ>
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Ophiuchus
                    > >
                    >
                    <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Ophiuchus&w1=Symbols&w2=Astrology&w3=Divination&w4=Ophiuchus&c=4&s=59&.sig=JoliRs5e4i8g3hETE--b2A>
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                    > >
                    > > * Visit your group "thefixedstars
                    > >
                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefixedstars>" on
                    > the web.
                    > >
                    > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
                    > email to:
                    > > thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > >
                    >
                    <mailto:thefixedstars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                    > >
                    > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                    > Yahoo! Terms of
                    > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    >
                    >


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Martina
                    stars into new signsGood grief! Had no idea what a shmozzle this would cause. Nope, I agree that there are arbitrary calenders all over the world,.. point
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      stars into new signs
                      Good grief! Had no idea what a shmozzle this would cause.
                      Nope, I agree that there are arbitrary calenders all over the
                      world,.. point is,.. for the first time, the world gets united by
                      a concept of time, not that maybe they'd use it on a personal level.
                      But its whats used for any TECHNOLOGICAL application.
                      The problem with computers and the year 2000 kept a lot of people busy,..
                      its not just North America that has nuclear power plants anymore, missile systems,
                      electrical grids, and they are all using the same base technology, they have to to speak to each other!! Across from the Aries pT on the year 2000 is Uranus,.... Computers, time,...... its a commonality like agreeing on date lines or Greenwich time being zero.
                      And as such the year 2000 was almost a celebration in coming together and beating a very weird problem. And as such, that all by itself is amazingly exciting,... we did something as a global unit,.. for once!!! A hell of a landmark date!  
                       
                      I'm looking at the 2001 chart and it just doesn't seem as powerful- I'm not sure something bad to Merc would be about 911,.. I would think it would have to involve something stronger. The lineups of "evil stars" to 2000 is much bigger than the 2001 chart
                       
                       There IS something in the 2000 chart that might be considered newspeople though,.. Neptune-Posiedon(the media) across from Hades-Amor. When you consider that newsmen were looked after, sometimes by both sides of a conflict, and Amor is about boundaries, Hades would take away their safety net and they would not be sure what they were walking into anymore. That little pic easily translates into "deceptive media crossing awful boundaries" as well,...and its something thats getting MORE OBVIOUS all the time. Case in point, the "terrorists" they supposedly picked up in Toronto,....our Prime Minister who supports Bush got on and made a statement and there wasn't one of us that saw it that didn't think,... hey,.. this is really fishy, its a setup!!
                      A Neptune-Posiedon is a propaganda machine.
                       
                      Martina
                    • msbhavens1
                      Y2K the problem with Computers is that the programmers in the US and Europe in the 1970 s were under the false impression that they were writing programs that
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Y2K
                        the problem with Computers is that the programmers in the US and
                        Europe in the 1970's were under the false impression that they were
                        writing programs that owuld be replaced in a reasonable time frame.
                        so they didn't need to use full 4 digit year date fields. Y2K wasn't
                        about the change in millenium, it was about forward thinking. It was
                        about PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE. You have programmers like the ones who
                        did the Pacific missile Radar Range in the 1960's who used full 4
                        digit years worried on projects in the 70's about not doing so and
                        they were right, banks especially are conservative entities and dont
                        change over technology very readily, they were in fact the biggest
                        problem. It was also a way to ensure Banks would update their
                        technology. (I can guarentee you wont see it happening again any
                        time soon, they are pathetic) It was a programming decision that
                        created a false economy and was rather interesting in its
                        overwhelming effect on world economy. But the problem was created in
                        the 70's, ergo wouldn't you want to review what was going on then to
                        see why it was done. generally it was for saving memory, which was
                        at a premium.

                        Okay you shouldn't lump all entities together Citgroup was one of
                        the first to goto Unix from Mainframe platform and they had the
                        fewest Y2K issues because they are a forward thinking entity, but
                        they were definitely the exception.

                        Beth

                        --- In thefixedstars@yahoogroups.com, "Martina" <merskine2@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > stars into new signsGood grief! Had no idea what a shmozzle this
                        would cause.
                        > Nope, I agree that there are arbitrary calenders all over the
                        > world,.. point is,.. for the first time, the world gets united by
                        > a concept of time, not that maybe they'd use it on a personal
                        level.
                        > But its whats used for any TECHNOLOGICAL application.
                        > The problem with computers and the year 2000 kept a lot of people
                        busy,..
                        > its not just North America that has nuclear power plants anymore,
                        missile systems,
                        > electrical grids, and they are all using the same base technology,
                        they have to to speak to each other!! Across from the Aries pT on
                        the year 2000 is Uranus,.... Computers, time,...... its a
                        commonality like agreeing on date lines or Greenwich time being
                        zero.
                        > And as such the year 2000 was almost a celebration in coming
                        together and beating a very weird problem. And as such, that all by
                        itself is amazingly exciting,... we did something as a global
                        unit,.. for once!!! A hell of a landmark date!
                        >
                        > I'm looking at the 2001 chart and it just doesn't seem as powerful-
                        I'm not sure something bad to Merc would be about 911,.. I would
                        think it would have to involve something stronger. The lineups
                        of "evil stars" to 2000 is much bigger than the 2001 chart
                        >
                        > There IS something in the 2000 chart that might be considered
                        newspeople though,.. Neptune-Posiedon(the media) across from Hades-
                        Amor. When you consider that newsmen were looked after, sometimes by
                        both sides of a conflict, and Amor is about boundaries, Hades would
                        take away their safety net and they would not be sure what they were
                        walking into anymore. That little pic easily translates
                        into "deceptive media crossing awful boundaries" as well,...and its
                        something thats getting MORE OBVIOUS all the time. Case in point,
                        the "terrorists" they supposedly picked up in Toronto,....our Prime
                        Minister who supports Bush got on and made a statement and there
                        wasn't one of us that saw it that didn't think,... hey,.. this is
                        really fishy, its a setup!!
                        > A Neptune-Posiedon is a propaganda machine.
                        >
                        > Martina
                        >
                      • Martina
                        I think the big problem with computers is they just weren t thinking AT ALL really! Instead of rewriting programs they just kept tacking on other bits until
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jun 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think the big problem with computers
                          is they just weren't thinking AT ALL really!
                          Instead of rewriting programs they just kept tacking on
                          other "bits" until there was such a mess that it couldn't be sorted through.
                          Unfortunately, they are still doing it,... everytime my computer updates
                          from microsoft, I lose programs because they no longer work, suddenly need
                          another patch,... CD drives are a big one,.. suddenly stop working,..
                          printers?? Oh yeah, those too. I have a real love-hate thing going on with
                          these electrical pieces of junk. Latest news about Vista, the XP
                          replacement,.. burning out the graphic chips because even when they are
                          doing NOTHING they are still running to capacity with the graphics.
                          Stupid,.... all I wanna do is run my programs,.. QUICKLY without all this
                          crap slowing me down. Who cares what the desktop looks like??
                          Quite inelegant solutions.
                          Martina
                        • msbhavens1
                          LOL, one should definitely be careful of updates, I do NOT have auto update on the computer because MS has sent out bad updates on occasion. ;-) you can turn
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jun 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            LOL, one should definitely be careful of updates, I do NOT have auto
                            update on the computer because MS has sent out bad updates on
                            occasion. ;-) you can turn it off if you currently have that on. Beth


                            --- In thefixedstars@yahoogroups.com, "Martina" <merskine2@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > I think the big problem with computers
                            > is they just weren't thinking AT ALL really!
                            > Instead of rewriting programs they just kept tacking on
                            > other "bits" until there was such a mess that it couldn't be
                            sorted through.
                            > Unfortunately, they are still doing it,... everytime my computer
                            updates
                            > from microsoft, I lose programs because they no longer work,
                            suddenly need
                            > another patch,... CD drives are a big one,.. suddenly stop
                            working,..
                            > printers?? Oh yeah, those too. I have a real love-hate thing going
                            on with
                            > these electrical pieces of junk. Latest news about Vista, the XP
                            > replacement,.. burning out the graphic chips because even when
                            they are
                            > doing NOTHING they are still running to capacity with the
                            graphics.
                            > Stupid,.... all I wanna do is run my programs,.. QUICKLY without
                            all this
                            > crap slowing me down. Who cares what the desktop looks like??
                            > Quite inelegant solutions.
                            > Martina
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.