HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: MARS
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:36:53 GMT
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK

In article <1992Oct5.145936.29292@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> stacey@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Stacey B. Martin) writes:
>In article <BvLHup.30s@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: 
>> Well,not quite.
>> Mars is in cancer and thus in its fall.  This makes it weak and ineffectual.
>> When Mars goes retrograde it becomes even weaker and even less prominent.
>
>any planet in its fall to be weak and ineffectual. The problem exists in attempting
>to live the energy of a planet and sign that are incompatible.

  Mars in capricorn means that the energy of mars is used effectively.  It is
not dissipated or frittered away.  Mars in cancer means that the energy shoots
in all directions and is not constructively directed (aspects and houses 
willing)
>
>I have Mars in Cancer, and it IS a pain in the ass. The absolute, most important
>thing to learn about it is to let it be. Mars in Cancer can't make a move until
>it FEELS that it's OK to do so, which is totally antithetical to the nature of Mars.

Mars stopped by emotion.  You are just proving my point.
>
>I also do NOT believe that planets in retrograde are weak. In fact, they sometimes
>can become overpowering because the energy is turned INWARD and is no longer
>externalized. Well, the whole point of looking at a chart is to become conscious

Try Yoga or counselling.  The whole point of charts is to find things out.  Not
just psychic stuff but real stuff that gets in the way.  If the energy of a 
planet is turned inwards it is only *effective* on you.  If something (anything)
can only effect one person/object I personally do not call it strong.

>
>As a final comment, would you REALLY tell a client that a planet they had was in its
>fall? How useless! Why not tell them instead the problems and benefits of a planet in
>a sign and to learn to love it, coz it's all they have. 
>

You do not go to a dentist to be lied to.  
Good news astrologers are like dentists who never give fillings.
The purpose of astrology is so that we know the effects of the stars and can
handle them and counter them.  Its not all they have,ever heard of free will?

>Actually, you couldn't pay me to have a Mars in Aries. :-)
>
>Stacey

I have Mars in Libra.  Having seen Mars in Capricorn in action I will swap
it any day.

Xavier
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: New Birth Data for Boris Yeltsin
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:28:13 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <BvCzGw.H58@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> srini@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca (Srinivasan K.) writes:
>In article <19rvhsINNcg2@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU
> (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>>In article <Buzw0K.KH4@csn.org< lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes:
>><
>><Boris Yeltsin: 16:30-17:00 LT (11:30-12:00 GMT), February 1,
>><1931, Butka, near Talitsa, 57N00, 63E30. Source: His mother to
>><Yaroslav Koryakov, letter to Nick Campion.
>><
>><Here is the Placidus chart set for 16:45 GMT (the mid-point in
>><the time range given):
>
>Do I see an error here? Is it 16:45 LT or GMT? (the mid-point in..)
>The Ascendent will be at an entirely different place. All the
>predictions different?


Oops! Yes, I made an error in stating the time for which the chart
was cast; it should have read 11:45 GMT (or 16:45 LT). The chart I
presented was correct.

Thanks for pointing out the error.


Maggie
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: 1992 QB1, Beyond Pluto
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:54:00 GMT

In article <BvDAwn.6rB@csn.org>, lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes...
> 
>In article <29SEP199221161662@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.101052.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, crago_l@cubldr.colorado.edu writes...
>>>The Object Beyond Pluto file just posted will be of interest to
>>>astrologers. 

>>Oh +0 is equivalent to 0Ari00 in the Siderial Zodiac.  In the tropical this
>>is about 25Ari40.  

>Are you absolutely sure about this Dave? I have it from a good source
>that astronomers use the tropical zodiac. The sidereal zodiac, which
>is not equivalent to the zodiacal constellations but is a division of
>the sky into 12 equal signs, is, I think, used only by astrologers,
>especially those in India.

Yep, I'm afraid you are right...

The funny thing is I first had it the other way and then I cancelled the post
thinking I had erred the first time.  0h0 is in the constellation Pisces, which
is 0Ari0 in your tropical zodiac.

Sorry about the mistake.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: choi@wk59.nas.nasa.gov (Diana Choi)
Subject: Re: Full Moon
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:08:43 GMT

(CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>Yes the answer is that there are no more violence, fires, and accidents at
>the time of the full moon than at other times.  Due to legend, people tend
>to attribute these disturbances to the full moon when there is one, whereas
>when they occur at some other time, the absence of correlation is swiftly
>forgotten.
>
>This whole discussion is a microcosm of astrological belief: the facts
>unambiguously show the absence of an effect, yet people are still talking
>themselves blue in the face trying to explain the effect that isn't there.

Though I don't agree with the statement about astrology, I must mention
that I too, have often seen statistics that do NOT show more violence,
fires, and accidents at the time of the full moon.  

As for astrology,  I have seen statistics that have led nonbelievers
to conclude that there might be something there.  One of them involved
charts of athletes and noted a frequency of angular mars's.

diana
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: Carole@brownvm (Carolyn Egan)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: 0Tau02? (Newbie question re:cusps and such)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:13:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.astrology
Organization: Brown University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cis_staff-kntx54.cis.brown.edu

In article <6360@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, lilleyc@cs.man.ac.uk (Chris Lilley)
wrote:

> Myself, I use no houses whatsoever, and signs only a little. I mainly
> use aspects, midpoints and most importantly transits to see the chart
> unfold in time.
> 
> I started off using Placidus (don't we all) for no good reason other
> than I only had Raphaels table of houses... <grin>
> 
> Equal houses, which are very popular in the UK, I never did get on
> with because the concept of the MC as something that could be in the
> 8,9,10 or 11 house just didn't seem to gel.
> 
> I tried Koch houses breiefly once I discovered Hand, but still found
> them unsatisfactory.
> 
> Eventually I let myself accept that aspects, midpoints and transits to
> the *angles* were significant, but to intermediate cusps (in whatever
> system) were not. So I dropped them. Then I discovered the Ebertin
> school of thought, which also seems to get on fine without houses. Has
> anyone else dropped them?

No I haven't dropped houses but it seems to me that I do focus more on the
angles, aspects and quadrant placements more than the individual houses.  I
like what houses have to say about an individual but one cannot always
count on an exactness of placement.  I've experimented with planets found
in different houses (ex: cuspie 5th/6th) in Placidus/Koch and found the
planet works from both houses.  

Just since the last UAC in DC have I become interested in studying
midpoints.  I will be taking a class on Uranian astrology and think
midpoints will be covered.  Are you a Uranian astrologer?

After natal chart discussion, I like using transits, solar arcs, 2ndaries
and solar returns for what's coming up in the year ahead.

Regards, Carol Egan
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Chris Lilley
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Technical Author, ITTI Computer Graphics and Visualisation Training Project
> Computer Graphics Unit, Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, UK
> Internet:   lilley@cgu.mcc.ac.uk        Janet:   lilley@uk.ac.mcc.cgu
> Voice:      +44 (0)61 275 6095          Fax:     +44 (0)61 275 6040
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carole@brownvm (Carolyn Egan)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Computer Astro Chart-don't bother
Followup-To: alt.astrology
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:33:55 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cis_staff-kntx59.cis.brown.edu

In article <1992Oct5.144804.9762@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S.
Dynamic) wrote:

> Meanwhaal, Dave Casper's chart's been read in rec.org.mensa fer all ye
> what wants to see;
> 
> yea.
> -ecsd

What a complete waste of time.  Once again, please don't put yourself it
the category of an Astrologer.
From: mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: 0Tau02? (Newbie question re:cusps and such)
Keywords: cusp astrolog local mean time
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:29:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>In article <BvGF0D.2y2@exnet.co.uk> s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
writes: 

>>As we all know when a planet is within 5' of of the next house we treat
>>it as being in that house.  This works fine in these circumstances. 

>Especially since the many different ways of calculating house
>divisions differ by a lot more than 5'! And the correct method of
>house division is probably the one thing about which there is more
>disagreement in astrology than any other.
>-- 
>Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
>Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
>5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205

Good point of discussion.

What house system(s) are you all using?  Maybe we could respond and say why
we use the system(s) that we use.

Mark
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Mr. CERN
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:09:09 GMT

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>
>OK, I'll hug you:
>You are doing a fine job of fighting all those stuck-up-for-no-real-reason types
>like "UN-SELF-AWARE PINHEADS" Dynamic and "very limited education" Malcolm.
>
>Especially the posting above gave me some laughs.  You hit several nails on
>their heads.

I'm stuck up for numbers of reasons, many of them fun, if not outright good.
Anyway, just keep reading. Arrogant as I am (Ur,Pl=Ju all in Leo) I am also
one of the most transparently self-aware people I have ever met. I'm one of
the fewer PINHEADs around who knows so and says so - and I have a lot of fun
with it.

You're a bit late, as I said, so just persist. Flowers grow slowly.
See also 'public chart reading' to occur in rec.org.mensa, for the benefit
of people with the same "no intelligent person could possibly believe ..."
frame.

See you in hell - I'll keep it warm for you while waiting for you to arrive.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Oh, yes - If I'm going to breeze my personality around, might as well give
people a clue why I'm like I am, for the curious I am

1017 EST 18 January 1956, Detroit MI 83W03 42N20 (coords as I recall.)

My full name: Eric Christopher Synergy Dynamic
My CA license plate: "Uranian"
I do computers, and I live in Berkeley.

you figure it out.

(gales of laughter)
-ecsd (Tarot 0)
From: mrcarl@milton.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: 0Tau02? (Newbie question re:cusps and such)
Keywords: cusp astrolog local mean time
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:42:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

xkramer@dante.nmsu.edu (KRAMER) writes:


>Like most people who were on a day when the sun changes
>sign I've wondered for years whether I was really an Aries
>or a Taurus (or whatever). In my case, most people cite
>my stubbornness as evidence that I _must_ be a Taurus--
>but then there are the folks who think I'm so egocentric
>I have to be an Aries. :)

>So I decided to gather up the appropriate data [ 8:00 am, 20 April 1965,
>Oxford, UK (1.15W 51.46N); so now you know all about me ;) ],
>crank it through astrolog, and find out for sure once and for all.

>So according to astrolog, my Sun is at 0Tau02.  I assume this
>means my Sun is at Taurus 0 degrees 2 minutes.  Somewhere
>in the mass of printout I got from astrolog is the note:

>Oh, one final question:  I notice astrolog asks for time zones.
>Should one use local mean time here or not?

>Xenia Kramer
>xkramer@nmsu.edu

When I ran your birth time, etc. through Astrolog, I came up with your sun
at 0 degress Taurus 00 minutes.  The International Atlas states that on
your day of birth, one should subtract one hour from GMT (Greenwich Mean
Time).  So in your case, input your time of birth as is, and when Astrolog
asks for time zone, i.e. number of hours from Greenwich, input -1.

As for your sun sign.  My belief and the belief of other astrologers is
that when your sun sign is toward the end of its sign and the beginning of
the next sign (i.e. in your case Aries and Taurus), your sun will take on
characteristics of both signs.  Think of the colors in the spectrum of
white light.  Red "blends" into orange which "blends" into yellow, etc.
So too with each astrological sign.  So you will exhibit qualities of both
aries and taurus, which seems to agree with the statement that you made
about yourself above.

Mark


**********    On a clear day, rise and look around you    *******
   *  *             and you'll see who you are          **        *
   *  *    on a clear day, how it will astound you    *    *        *
   *  *         that the glow of your being          *      *         *
   *  * S          outshines every star!              *    *      **    * M
   *  * U    You feel part of every mountain,      *    **      *    *    O
   *  * N   sea and shore.  You can hear from far    *         *      *   O
   *  *   and near a world you've never heard before   *        *    *    N
   *  *  And on that clear day you can see forever more  *        **
**********                                                 *******
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: Carole@brownvm (Carolyn Egan)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Full Moon/Tito
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:21:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.astrology
Organization: Brown University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cis_staff-kntx54.cis.brown.edu

In article <1aq6drINN1kf@agate.berkeley.edu>, tito@ocf.berkeley.edu (Tito
Domine) wrote:

> 	I have a theory about this. In the same way as the moon causes
> tides, the gravitational effect also causes the gas and liquid factors
> in the human body to "rise up" and thus exert pressure on the brain from
> the inside. Now depending on how one's physical structure reacts to this
> "pressure", one may either be a little bit euphoric or depressed or
> "de-stabilized" for as long as the full moon's effect is strong.
> 
> 	In fact, in some religious cults, notably in India, the prescribe
> taking less food on Full Moon (called Purnima) and Dark Moon (called
> Amavasya) - some even go as far as to prescribe fasting on these days
> to avoid the "de-stabilzing" effect of the Moon's gravitational
> pull and, of course, also fasting is performed sometimes in sympathy for
> the millions of human beings on the planet who have nothing to eat.
> 
> 	Man, I've not written on this net for ages. Toooo much work....

Welcome back, nice post - good information.  Don't go away, try posting
instead of interpreting charts - just say no!  

So many forget just how natural Astrology is.  Nothing magic - just
comparisons to the effects of the planets to earth.  Just as there are
tree, grass, cement, the oceans ( and they effect the earth) there is the
solar system and IT has an effect also.  It's really so simple.

Regards, Carol Egan
> 
> 
> 
> tito
From: stacey@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Stacey B. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: MARS
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:59:36 GMT
Organization: AUS
Originator: news@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <BvLHup.30s@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes: 
> Well,not quite.
> Mars is in cancer and thus in its fall.  This makes it weak and ineffectual.
> When Mars goes retrograde it becomes even weaker and even less prominent.

> Xavier.
> 
> 
I would not consider Mars in Cancer to be weak and ineffectual. I would not consider
any planet in its fall to be weak and ineffectual. The problem exists in attempting
to live the energy of a planet and sign that are incompatible.

I have Mars in Cancer, and it IS a pain in the ass. The absolute, most important
thing to learn about it is to let it be. Mars in Cancer can't make a move until
it FEELS that it's OK to do so, which is totally antithetical to the nature of Mars.
So you learn to recognize or respect both sides, because if you ignore one in favor
of the other, you're screwed. The other hard-to-handle part of it is that Mars,
because it enables us to draw boundaries for others, loses some of its hard edges in
Cancer. Cancer doesn't want to assert itself by telling someone they've overstepped
their bounds; it would rather crawl back into its shell.

I also do NOT believe that planets in retrograde are weak. In fact, they sometimes
can become overpowering because the energy is turned INWARD and is no longer
externalized. Well, the whole point of looking at a chart is to become conscious
of yourself and your motives and how you act out the energy. When the energy
is internalized, it may take longer to see, but it also has a much better chance of
becoming integrated. And this lessens the need of the psyche to project it outwards.

As a final comment, would you REALLY tell a client that a planet they had was in its
fall? How useless! Why not tell them instead the problems and benefits of a planet in
a sign and to learn to love it, coz it's all they have. 

Actually, you couldn't pay me to have a Mars in Aries. :-)

Stacey
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: lat/longitude help!
Date: 4 Oct 1992 20:56:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, na0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicolas Alejandro Arauz) says:

>I'm trying to do a horoscope of someone in Paris, France and for someone
>in Korea.  Can someone please give me the latitude and longitudinal
>locations for these 2 places?  Thanks a lot!
>
Nicolas:

You need (I need a city ) in Korea (you know, it's kind of a big counrty!
:-) 

PARIS: (The observatory @ Seine:) 2E20 & 48N50.

Tony Alicea
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: deb@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (David Barrett)
Subject: Re: IAU 5611 (was Object beyond Pluto)
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:53:24 GMT

Dr. David C. Jewitt can be emailed at this address:

JEWITT@UHIFA

dB

Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:28:08 EDT
From: Andy Vogelmann <AMV3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: ASPECT INTERPRETATION AND INTERCEPTIONS

Help!  I am attempting to construct and interpret a birth chart (using Astrolog
output).

1.  When looking for aspects, should the actual number of degrees separating
    the bodies be used?

    I would think so (as one book states), but all books seem to plot the
    houses equal-angularly (the 360 degrees are divided evenly into 12
    30-degree houses) and, in the event of an interception, the intercepted
    sign is just "included" to the respective house without "widening" the
    angular representation of that house on the chart.  If we are to use the
    "actual number of degrees separating the bodies" for aspect analysis,
    why plot them without the proper number of degrees between bodies so that
    we can more easily detect the aspects visually?  If we aren't to use
    the acual number of degrees of separation, what are we to use?

    Similarly, house cusps computed by Astrolog are not necessarily separated
    by 30 degrees. Should the differently-sized houses be plotted accordingly?

2.  Is there any special meaning ascribed to a planetary body being
    intercepted?

Thank you,
-A confused Gemini (What else is new?)
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Mr Cern
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:12:29 GMT
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK

In article <Carole-280992100144@cis_staff-kntx57.cis.brown.edu> Carole@brownvm (Carolyn Egan) writes:
>In article <Bv9G60.5E0@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
>wrote:
>> 
>> I have been looking at his birthchart.  Assuming it is right and that
>> I have some skill in this area and that astrology works I have come to
>> some conclusions.  
>
>My dear Mr. Gallagher, you have NO SKILLs.  I certainly hope you are not a
>practicing Astrologer.  If anything, your post was a joke in very poor
>taste and demeans the efforts of serious practitioners.  It would behoove
>the both of you to remove yourselves from this list and continue on
>something akin to alt.imbecilic. 


You are so right.  Considering how far off I was I don't know why I don't
just throw myself of a cliff.
Perhaps you would like to explain your rather unspecific comments and
tell me where *you* think I got it wrong afterall at least I didn't go
for wooly psycho babble,I did try to be specific.
By the way, where are your efforts.


Xavier
(score so far Xavier 2 Reality 1)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
From: acarr@pell2l10.alleg.edu (Amelia Carr)
Subject: Re: 0Tau02? (Newbie question re:cusps and such)
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.191835.8244@u.washington.edu>  
mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson) writes:
> My experience has been that a more accurate reading is achieved if you
> take into account the interpretation both signs involved when a planet  
is
> between 29 degrees of one sign and 0 degrees of the next.  It is
> semantically true that if your sun is in 00 degrees Taurus 00 minutes,
> then you are by definition a "Taurus".  My personal belief is, however,
> that if you concentrate only of the qualities of Taurus (for whatever
> planet one is talking about), you'll wind up with only half of an
> interpretation.  This technique is also used when the exact birth time  
is
> not known or is dubious and there is some dispute as to which sign a
> planet falls into (faster moving planets of course).
> 
> Any other thoughts/comments/personal experience by other astrologers?
> 
> Mark
I've been following this with interest, since I've got 3 planets in  
degrees 1 and 2 of Taurus...   
  I've always liked the interpretations that look to the specific degree  
of the planet, and think about movement through the signs.  A sun at 0  
deg. Taur would be a "new" or "young" Taurus, whereas later would be more  
mature, an "older" Taurus.  Some of this kind of interpretation has to do  
with reincarnation in the chart, but one of the tenets of ethical  
astrology would be that you must learn the lessons of each sign, and that  
later degrees are farther along in their lessons.  By this interpretation,  
you would understand that a Sun (or any planet) that has just come from a  
previous sign would be very different from one that was born right in the  
middle of it.  Part of the psychology of the progressed chart has to do  
with that learning experience as well.  Another corollary of this notion  
is that whatever planet is at the highest degree in your chart is the one  
where you are the "wisest", (or stuck in your ways) and the earlier  
degrees represent places that are more apt to learn, or more immature.  
   By the way, someone else has written on this--if the reference is of  
interest, I could dig it up.
Amelia
Newsgroups: alt.astrology