What do you think of this?

This topic was created in the Astrology forum by SagittarianMind on Friday, September 9, 2011 and has 46 replies.
We usually categorize signs by their element, quality, and polarity. But I found an interesting astrological concept that classifies the signs as personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal.

Personal Signs - Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer - are principally aware of and concerned with individual concerns.
Interpersonal Signs - Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio - are principally aware of and concerned with social and societal concerns.
Transpersonal Signs - Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces - are principally aware of and concerned with humanitarian and existential concerns.
details
I was about to agree until I saw Aquarius under transpersonal....lol...I have plenty of Aquas in my life and I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that they are concerned about themselves...and yep, that's about it. Tongue
details
there's defo some truth to this. but i feel leos are more concerned with themselves than aries. maybe aries and leo need to do a little swapsies. i guess it boils down to which sign of the two give a bigger damn about how they come across.
details
Posted by brianafay
I was about to agree until I saw Aquarius under transpersonal....lol...I have plenty of Aquas in my life and I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that they are concerned about themselves...and yep, that's about it. Tongue


I find most Aquarians to be selfish, unemotional, aloof, and quite detached. Despite that, they are inclined to be humanitarian, which is strange. For instance, they'd express more sympathy and concern towards a stranger or society as a whole than to someone close to them.
They also tend to have fixed ideas; many times they're wrong and it's hard for them to accept that.
details
Posted by nimbue
there's defo some truth to this. but i feel leos are more concerned with themselves than aries. maybe aries and leo need to do a little swapsies. i guess it boils down to which sign of the two give a bigger damn about how they come across.


I think Aries has a "me first" mentality, and they don't care how they're perceived as much as Leo. They're focused on themselves; their problems, passions, goals, relationships, et cetera. Whereas a Leo's mentality is basically "it's all about me." They are not only focused on themselves, they are also focused on making everyone focus on them. Think of it this way: Leo are more prone to sacrifice a personal aspiration if it would damage their social status than Aries.
details
Posted by bluemoon9043834
Aries are generous, intuitive, giving, and sympathetic. I find other fire signs like Leo and Sagittarius a lot more unaware and self-centered.


They can be generous, it's true. In what sense do you mean intuitive? They can sure be intuitive when they act first and think later or do something that comes naturally to them. But if you mean intuitive as in sensing someone's feelings, intentions, et cetera . . . I'm too sure about that. I'll admit some can spot the bullshitters, but that comes from experience not pure intuition. Unless of course, an Aries person (or any other sign) have placements that would make them more sensitive and intuitive. As for being giving and sympathetic, yes they are, but so they are self-centered too. I think it's worth mentioning I'm not referring every single person who is an Aries. Just in case you tell me "I'm not self-centered."
You seem to possess awareness, how come you find Leo and Sagittarius to be unaware and self-centered but not Aries? I think sure you know some really nice Aries people... honest, not too aggressive, forgiving, you name it. As I'm sure you know really immature ones from your own sign as well. What's curious is that you are sticking up for your sign when you seem to know that they are not very different than Leo and Sagittarius, the signs you are "slightly" putting down. Is there some sort of animosity between fire signs on here or what? That'd be sad to hear cause I get along well with all fire signs.


details
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by brianafay
I was about to agree until I saw Aquarius under transpersonal....lol...I have plenty of Aquas in my life and I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that they are concerned about themselves...and yep, that's about it. Tongue


I find most Aquarians to be selfish, unemotional, aloof, and quite detached. Despite that, they are inclined to be humanitarian, which is strange. For instance, they'd express more sympathy and concern towards a stranger or society as a whole than to someone close to them.
They also tend to have fixed ideas; many times they're wrong and it's hard for them to accept that.
click to expand


Yeah I guess I see what you mean, especially the bolded part.
details
The same way a Leo can be generous and egoistical, or a Pisces compassionate and sadistic. Oh and Aries can be self-centered in a good way; they can focus on achievements, enjoy life, or anything that's good and gets them to focus on themselves. If they are in a relationship that's not good for them and there's bad feelings, they will let go and move on with themselves because they have to enjoy life since that's what comes natural to them. As they can also be a little too focused on themselves to a degree that's detrimental, and yet still be generous and a good friend.
As for not bearing grudges on sacrifices they make for a friend... actually, the same can be said for Leo and Sagittarius. As I said before, I get along with all fire signs and I know them. They generally match the description of their sign, and I say that from personal experience. About your idea of Aries being highly intuitive. Saying a sign has qualities of the other because they are next to each other is wrong. Signs next to each other tend to be... very different because of their element, polarity, and quality. Your point would be more acceptable if you were referring to Aries cusps born in March. Otherwise, it seems like you're simply trying to find back up for your claim that Aries are highly intuitive.
You stick up for your sign because you know your sign best? So does the Aries people that identify better with the typical description of their sign (which happen to be most people) than the one you provided. So I'm sure they'd agree with me.
You are taking my words out of context. I don't see why you're stressing that Leo is a fixed sign and Sagittarius a mutable one. I said they're not very different, not that they're not different. It's pretty clear I'm aware of the difference you pointed out. And I think you understood perfectly when I said they're not very different from each other, as in speaking of personality and good and bad traits, not quality/mode.
details
And why do I feel I'm being attacked here? I was attacking your argument, not you. It seems you're projecting what's going on with you in me. It's you who needs to get her ego out of the way, at least apparently. Let me guess, is it because you like to think of yourself as aware and selfless and you didn't take well the idea of your sign not being the wisest or most developed according to classification being presented here? Is it that me addressing everyone as if I knew best gave you the impression I'm full of myself (regardless of being right or wrong)? Is it that you don't like people who know their stuff and express it firmly because you think you're the guru on the block? Is it all true? Oh by the way, a Gemini is highly sensitive as a Cancer because Cancer is next to Gemini. I guess we'll all be narrow minded before believing such. Okay, some people would agree to be humorous or just to side up with you (bet you have more friends than me since you're older in dxpnet than me.)
details
Idk, I'm not trying to be contradictory...but I think Aries and Gemini belong in the same category -- the personal one.
Although yes, Aries can be very generous and caring...just like Geminis, they are so in a self-interested way.
There is usually a motive...this doesn't always mean something negative or malicious...could be a positive motive, like say it makes them feel good about themselves to help someone, or to build a relationship, gain a friend, etc.

Anyways, I have never known an Aries or a Gemini (or even a Cancer for that matter) to do something generous, gracious, and seemingly selfless without it somehow benefiting them.

But that's not really the point anyways!...being "principally aware or and concerned with individual concerns" doesn't necessarily mean self-centered, selfish, etc. (As I mentioned previously, I find Aquas to be some of the most self-centered of the lot.)
I think you are focusing on the negative qualities of the category. (As others have as well)
Being "principally aware of and concerned with humanitarian and existential concerns" is not a higher rank or more positive than another category. Just a different mindset.
I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to be more concerned with humanitarian issues than personal issues or those of your family/friends/peers. Just sayin.
details
Posted by brianafay
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by brianafay
I was about to agree until I saw Aquarius under transpersonal....lol...I have plenty of Aquas in my life and I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that they are concerned about themselves...and yep, that's about it. Tongue


I find most Aquarians to be selfish, unemotional, aloof, and quite detached. Despite that, they are inclined to be humanitarian, which is strange. For instance, they'd express more sympathy and concern towards a stranger or society as a whole than to someone close to them.
They also tend to have fixed ideas; many times they're wrong and it's hard for them to accept that.


Yeah I guess I see what you mean, especially the bolded part.

click to expand


Some are really friendly though! smile
details
Posted by SagittarianMind
The same way a Leo can be generous and egoistical, or a Pisces compassionate and sadistic. Oh and Aries can be self-centered in a good way; they can focus on achievements, enjoy life, or anything that's good and gets them to focus on themselves. If they are in a relationship that's not good for them and there's bad feelings, they will let go and move on with themselves because they have to enjoy life since that's what comes natural to them. As they can also be a little too focused on themselves to a degree that's detrimental, and yet still be generous and a good friend.
As for not bearing grudges on sacrifices they make for a friend... actually, the same can be said for Leo and Sagittarius. As I said before, I get along with all fire signs and I know them. They generally match the description of their sign, and I say that from personal experience. About your idea of Aries being highly intuitive. Saying a sign has qualities of the other because they are next to each other is wrong. Signs next to each other tend to be... very different because of their element, polarity, and quality. Your point would be more acceptable if you were referring to Aries cusps born in March. Otherwise, it seems like you're simply trying to find back up for your claim that Aries are highly intuitive.
You stick up for your sign because you know your sign best? So does the Aries people that identify better with the typical description of their sign (which happen to be most people) than the one you provided. So I'm sure they'd agree with me.
You are taking my words out of context. I don't see why you're stressing that Leo is a fixed sign and Sagittarius a mutable one. I said they're not very different, not that they're not different. It's pretty clear I'm aware of the difference you pointed out. And I think you understood perfectly when I said they're not very different from each other, as in speaking of personality and good and bad traits, not quality/mode.



you beat me to it! we were responding at the same time and basically said very similar things....hahaha
twinning?
details
Posted by brianafay
Posted by SagittarianMind
The same way a Leo can be generous and egoistical, or a Pisces compassionate and sadistic. Oh and Aries can be self-centered in a good way; they can focus on achievements, enjoy life, or anything that's good and gets them to focus on themselves. If they are in a relationship that's not good for them and there's bad feelings, they will let go and move on with themselves because they have to enjoy life since that's what comes natural to them. As they can also be a little too focused on themselves to a degree that's detrimental, and yet still be generous and a good friend.
As for not bearing grudges on sacrifices they make for a friend... actually, the same can be said for Leo and Sagittarius. As I said before, I get along with all fire signs and I know them. They generally match the description of their sign, and I say that from personal experience. About your idea of Aries being highly intuitive. Saying a sign has qualities of the other because they are next to each other is wrong. Signs next to each other tend to be... very different because of their element, polarity, and quality. Your point would be more acceptable if you were referring to Aries cusps born in March. Otherwise, it seems like you're simply trying to find back up for your claim that Aries are highly intuitive.
You stick up for your sign because you know your sign best? So does the Aries people that identify better with the typical description of their sign (which happen to be most people) than the one you provided. So I'm sure they'd agree with me.
You are taking my words out of context. I don't see why you're stressing that Leo is a fixed sign and Sagittarius a mutable one. I said they're not very different, not that they're not different. It's pretty clear I'm aware of the difference you pointed out. And I think you understood perfectly when I said they're not very different from each other, as in speaking of personality and good and bad traits, not quality/mode.



you beat me to it! we were responding at the same time and basically said very similar things....hahaha
twinning?
click to expand


Mercury twin. Winking
details
You could take people's reactions to this as an example, really.
Those who get defensive, etc.
details
I'm off to bed. I seriously need some sleep, lol.
details
Nightsmile
details
It goes along with the progression idea in a way...
Using the Fire signs as an example
Aries= concerned with their own ideas, personal success. Ambitious//busy thoughts
Leo= concerned with social matters, entertaining, being admired/loved. Leaders
Sagittarius= concerned with understanding the world, search for knowledge. Philosophers
etc., same could be said similarly for the other elements
details
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by nimbue
there's defo some truth to this. but i feel leos are more concerned with themselves than aries. maybe aries and leo need to do a little swapsies. i guess it boils down to which sign of the two give a bigger damn about how they come across.


I think Aries has a "me first" mentality, and they don't care how they're perceived as much as Leo. They're focused on themselves; their problems, passions, goals, relationships, et cetera. Whereas a Leo's mentality is basically "it's all about me." They are not only focused on themselves, they are also focused on making everyone focus on them. Think of it this way: Leo are more prone to sacrifice a personal aspiration if it would damage their social status than Aries.
click to expand


now, that is true...'they are also focused on making everyone focus on them.' 'me first' vs. 'it's all about me'. subtle difference, but one has a more social than individual slant. that's for clearing that up smile
details
Lol clearly you're not grasping the concept. Because you fall under the first category and can only be concerned with the implications it has on you personally. You cannot see outside yourself and you cannot see the big picture.

*shrugs*
that's the point!
details
Impresswho,
Your rhetorical question is loaded and misleading. It suggests your sign's main purpose or concern is to give or help others by focusing on the self first. That is false. Generally speaking, while Aries doesn't have any problem helping a friend, the weak, or letting others enjoy life and be happy, it is very unlikely that the motivation to focus on the self are other people. They want to live (first and for them) as they let others live, not live for others by living first.
You say you are highly intuitive. I would like to know if you have significant water influence in your chart. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that fire signs are "highly intuitive." But I guess it depends on what you meant. Fire is spontaneous and intuitive. But that type of intuition deals mainly with quick reactions or decisions; it's masculine oriented or gut-like. On the other hand, water signs are endowed with an intuition that is more feminine in nature and it's more linked to emotional or psychic sensitivity.
On Aquarius. I wrote "I find most..." meaning they are the majority of the Aquarians I know (and they aren't many). I wasn't implying that's all they are or can be. Also, I didn't focus only on the negative, just mainly. It'd be inevitable not to mention such "negative" qualities if I'm intending to share an honest view. I remember stating they're humanitarian and friendly, too. So there. The truth is, I don't believe or expect Aquarians to be like I've describe them since I don't know many. I simply expressed my perception of how they appeared to be based on the ones I know. I do believe they have a tendency to be like I've describe them, but not to such extent. I wasn't expecting people to take my words on Aquarians as a general truth.
As for your daughter. It sounds like you are trying to pass her case as a general truth. While it is true that many people hide their emotions as a defense mechanism, that has nothing to do with the sign of Aquarius. The whole chart can play a part. Plus Astrology is not the only influence in a person's psyche. You'll find people like your daughter from all signs.
details
Posted by bluemoon9043834
Also, I disagree with your list because there are people born in the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer that are humanitarians and concerned with the welfare of others. Angelina Jolie is an example of this, she is a Gemini with an Aries moon.
And then I know people in the latter signs who don't give a damn about humanitarian efforts or the welfare of others. I am not sure that Aquarius is humanitarian and why it's linked to humanitarianism. Can anyone say why? Can an Aquarius speak up here? The sun is in its fall in that sign as well.


Choosing celebrities to reflect examples that validate your point is utterly unacceptable in this case. Many celebrities take part in humanitarian causes, so it's not hard to find celebrities from all signs that are or seem humanitarian. You could try googling celebrities that fit into the third category of signs that didn't involve in humanitarian work, but you'll realize how pointless that'd be since it can be done on celebrities of all signs.
Aquarians are known for their revolutionary mindset and rebellious nature. They are usually in favor of the abolition of biased social views, prejudice, et cetera. Aquarius is a sign associated with science, technology, reforms, and social freedom. Things that benefit humans as a whole. It's not so hard to see why the sign of Aquarius is linked to humanitarianism.
details
Posted by brianafay
Lol clearly you're not grasping the concept. Because you fall under the first category and can only be concerned with the implications it has on you personally. You cannot see outside yourself and you cannot see the big picture.

*shrugs*
that's the point!


+100
LOL
details
I intuitively know that you are all full of shit and know everything about nothing at all.
details
o wow that was cool. where did u find this? i think it all sounds right on smile
details
Posted by bluemoon9043834
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by bluemoon9043834
Also, I disagree with your list because there are people born in the signs of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer that are humanitarians and concerned with the welfare of others. Angelina Jolie is an example of this, she is a Gemini with an Aries moon.
And then I know people in the latter signs who don't give a damn about humanitarian efforts or the welfare of others. I am not sure that Aquarius is humanitarian and why it's linked to humanitarianism. Can anyone say why? Can an Aquarius speak up here? The sun is in its fall in that sign as well.


Choosing celebrities to reflect examples that validate your point is utterly unacceptable in this case. Many celebrities take part in humanitarian causes, so it's not hard to find celebrities from all signs that are or seem humanitarian. You could try googling celebrities that fit into the third category of signs that didn't involve in humanitarian work, but you'll realize how pointless that'd be since it can be done on celebrities of all signs.
Aquarians are known for their revolutionary mindset and rebellious nature. They are usually in favor of the abolition of biased social views, prejudice, et cetera. Aquarius is a sign associated with science, technology, reforms, and social freedom. Things that benefit humans as a whole. It's not so hard to see why the sign of Aquarius is linked to humanitarianism.



I disagree with you. Celebrities and the well knowns are acceptable examples because they are known.
Is Opera Winfrey someone you consider in that Aquarius mindset? Sarah Palin? Why or why not?
click to expand

details
Well, you're being rather stubborn and irrational. Resorting to cherry-picking was not a good move.
While celebrities and well-known people are generally good examples, this case is the exception. My previous reply???which you seem to have ignored since you came to the conclusion that celebrities and the well-knowns are good examples???invalidates your argument... in response mine. You can't simply ignore reason and proceed to assert your point.
I believe you are an intelligent woman who doesn't need others to break things down for her in order to grasp simple concepts. Unfortunately, that's not very apparent. But just in case, I'm going to explain it anyway.
As I said before, many celebrities and well-known people are into humanitarianism. They are in the position to help others. Whether they do it for attention, genuine concern, or both, it's not possible for us to determine who is really an humanitarian. You can always fall back on the exception fallacy by evaluating a celebrity's character or actions to draw conclusions. But really, there's really no way for you to know their true intentions; you would still be operating under assumptions that can't be proven right or wrong.
details
Posted by aquarius21
o wow that was cool. where did u find this? i think it all sounds right on smile


Wikipedia. smile
details
Ooh, so defensive! I struck a nerve!
Is lying and denying your actions also part of your clever stratagem? I'm not projecting anything, you are. You didn't "just" disagreed and stated why. You supplied an answer that was derived only from my conclusion, not my premises. You ignored the evidence; you are guilty of cherry picking. I suggest you stop trying to twist things around because that won't work with me.
If you are insinuating I am guilty of cherry picking because I ignored, umm... this for example, "Is Opera Winfrey someone you consider in that Aquarius mindset? Sarah Palin? Why or why not?" Then you are wrong once again. Yes, I ignored that, and purposely. But after proving your method was flawed. It was only logical for me to dismiss the latter after invalidating the concept of celebrities being acceptable examples. I didn't ignore evidence so that was not cherry picking. But in case you weren't referring to that, I challenge you to point out where was I cherry picking. And I challenging you because I'm sure I'm not guilty of such.
What I see as stubborn is actually your integrity? If you say so.
So here we go again. I see you still hold on to your belief that using celebrities as examples is acceptable in this case. Now, that's stubborn and irrational. It's idiotic to think that someone is going to use unknowns for examples? You're right. I completely agree with you. The thing is, I never suggested or even intended to use unknowns as examples... Good imagination, though.
Oh, you ignored nothing I said? Really? Liar. If by "stop monopolizing," you mean stop addressing everything you say, you're in for a let down. I know where I stand, and that's why I have more control of this conversation. You on the other hand, have to try hard to come up with new ways of twisting things around to your advantage, while still trying to appear right, strong, assertive, and on point. I'm not open minded? So I either accept your conclusions or I'm not open minded? I reject your false dichotomy. I'm open minded, but that hardly requires me to agree with your views, only consider them. I've done that plenty of times, but they just failed to make sense.
details
You were expecting some sort of intellectual discourse with me... Cool. So you were luring me into more stable terms of engagement by expressing your opposition? Not so cool. I don't lack knowledge about what I originally posted. The problem is that you wanted to get through this topic by imposing your standards, which were ineffective but convenient to you. And you couldn't admit that.
I can do well without the use of "ad-hominems." I wasn't resorting to that because I lacked knowledge or an argument. I already proved you wrong before. But I still provided my argument and proved my point once again (in my second attempt to make you understand). More on the ad-hominem. I was simply being completely honest and everything I said was based on what you wrote.
And please stop playing the open minded card to make things appear more subjective than they really are. You like to state that I'm not open minded. Well, I say you can't play fair. Fair standards are necessary to fruitful conversations and many other things.
details
Posted by PurrrrHissss
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by brianafay
I was about to agree until I saw Aquarius under transpersonal....lol...I have plenty of Aquas in my life and I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that they are concerned about themselves...and yep, that's about it. Tongue


I find most Aquarians to be selfish, unemotional, aloof, and quite detached. Despite that, they are inclined to be humanitarian, which is strange. For instance, they'd express more sympathy and concern towards a stranger or society as a whole than to someone close to them.


Strangers often deserve more empathy and concern than loved ones, though. I have moon in Aquarius. I tend to feel more empathy for strangers because they have much worse to deal with in life than anyone I'm close to or I could even begin to imagine.
click to expand


+1
I understand where you're coming from. smile
details
This is counterproductive. You're embarrassing yourself and at the same time making me laugh like crazy. smile
details
Not so fast, ram. And for the record: you are transparent... at least in my eyes. smile
http://prntscr.com/33bnl
 http://prntscr.com/33bod
details
Actually, I take back what I said. No ad hominem was committed. I said something that you could have interpreted as a personal attack, but that was not meant to dismiss any of your arguments without logically addressing them.
Retardo? Really? You sure act like one. smile
details
Lol wow again
the behavior from some of you is proving the point.
details
Posted by brianafay
Lol clearly you're not grasping the concept. Because you fall under the first category and can only be concerned with the implications it has on you personally. You cannot see outside yourself and you cannot see the big picture.

*shrugs*
that's the point!

details
Posted by thomas1214
Posted by SagittarianMind
Not so fast, ram. And for the record: you are transparent... at least in my eyes. smile
http://prntscr.com/33bnl
 http://prntscr.com/33bod


lol no wonder she hid those posts.
click to expand


She is an infant and should be treated as such. Let's make use of the power of condescension through benevolence. It's an amazing thing to realize you can put people down by pretending you wish you could help them. At least, I've always found it to be useful. So rock on!
smile
details
Posted by thomas1214
Posted by SagittarianMind
Posted by thomas1214
Posted by SagittarianMind
Not so fast, ram. And for the record: you are transparent... at least in my eyes. smile
http://prntscr.com/33bnl
 http://prntscr.com/33bod


lol no wonder she hid those posts.


She is an infant and should be treated as such. Let's make use of the power of condescension through benevolence. It's an amazing thing to realize you can put people down by pretending you wish you could help them. At least, I've always found it to be useful. So rock on!
smile


idk man it just seems like she argues for the sake of arguing, which i don't see the point to :S

click to expand


It's a child's tantrum. She argues because she is prideful, like to start fights, and wants her sign to be everything she considers cool. Every time she rams against you, just kick her head like I did. Disciplining a child is an act of benevolence.
details
No, but I see you take things literally, like a child. Please remain silent.
details
Posted by bluemoon9043834
Posted by SagittarianMind
No, but I see you take things literally, like a child. Please remain silent.


You certainly don't like a woman talking back to you.

click to expand


You are a child; you don't know anything. Please remain silent to avoid embarrassing yourself further. End of discussion.
Children these days...
details
This is so funny. Her misusing words like cherry-picking and ad hominem suggests she doesn't know their meaning and have no knowledge of simple terms associated with arguments. Well that, or lying and denying does it for her in "arguing." Either way, she shouldn't be talking or getting into arguments and debates; she commits atrocious errors in thinking. A class in Critical Thinking would be beneficial. Yes, she should go back to college.
*poof*
details

Transpersonal Signs - Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces - are principally aware of and concerned with humanitarian and existential concerns.


Doesn't sound like any Capricorn i've met.
But maybe i just met lots of bad examples.
details
Posted by michaelfish

Transpersonal Signs - Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces - are principally aware of and concerned with humanitarian and existential concerns.


Doesn't sound like any Capricorn i've met.
But maybe i just met lots of bad examples.
click to expand


It's not easy to see it Capricorn. But if you think about it, the sign is associated with authority, politics, social structure et cetera. Basically rising to the top to help people, though that varies with each person as there's good, neutral, and bad people from all signs.
details
Bluemoon,
What pretenses? Everything I've stated was derived from previous conversations. We both know this and anyone who read them do too. You're projecting again. For someone who screams about willful ignorance and the use of pretenses, it is you who uses those techniques (and many others) while trying to clumsily disguise them by casting accusations towards me. It's quite clever and works for a little while, but people catch up easily. It's okay, keep making posts using more projection (accusations and insults that suits you better), lies, pretenses, and provocations if it makes you feel like you won something and appear like the honest, fiery, no-bullshit Aries you want to be seen as. I know those tricks does it for you when you're proved wrong and can't deal with the truth because your ego is too bruised. Or try to grow up and act your age, it sounds like a better option.
Lol, you are a rock. Don't take that as a compliment as I referred to your head. Firstly, humanitarian and existential concerns are attributed to four signs, not just Sagittarius; both qualities don't necessarily apply to each sign. For instance, existential concern is predominant in Sagittarius, while in Aquarius is humanitarian concern, and both are prominent in Pisces. You get the picture (I hope so). Secondly, since this applies to zodiac signs, it is a broad concept, a general idea that you keep trying to force into being personal, narrow and particular to find it easier to assert your false beliefs. Thirdly, your responses are inclined to agree with what you seemingly disagree, the very concept that originated our disagreements. You continually show that you view things from a personal perspective and are unable to see the big picture. That's all I have to say about that.
Oh, and I'm not from Boston nor do I live there. Get a life and stop trying so hard because it makes you fail even harder. The internet is a dangerous place, so I use a proxy to protect myself from creepy stalkers like yourself. But feel free to reply, and while you're doing that, make sure you provide a good deal of empty, exaggerated claims, pretenses, distortions, fallacies, and projections. I probably won't respond, but it's definitely worth a try. So bring it, bitch!


details
Posted by michaelfish

Transpersonal Signs - Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces - are principally aware of and concerned with humanitarian and existential concerns.


Doesn't sound like any Capricorn i've met.
But maybe i just met lots of bad examples.
click to expand


It's not easy to see it in Capricorn. But if you think about it, the sign is associated with authority, politics, social structure et cetera. Basically rising to the top to help people, though that varies with each person as there's good, neutral, and bad people from all signs.
details
dxp is hilarious...
screen shots, ip addresses...phew
details
clearly, a certain someone has been carrying a torch for saggis for quite some time.
details

Leave Your Feedback

We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.

Home Astrology Comments Forums Search

©1997-2025 dxpnet.com. All Rights Reserved.
Advertising Contact Terms of Use Privacy Policy