What is your Zodiac sign and how do you get along with rival signs?

In summary then:

Capricorn: obstinate
Leos: Sunshine
Virgo: snake
Pisces: introverted moody, alternatively introverted moody cunt
Taurus: bull-headed workhorses
Scorpios: chameleons
 
I don't believe in any of it.

However if I'm talking to a female and she's into it I smile and nod in the appropriate places.

Does it help my chances? I don't think it hurts
 
liner said:
If you're a female that I'm talking to I'm smiling and nodding right now. Probably saying how true.
Click to expand...
If you actually googled your partners/relatives you would see that it¨s absolutely correct. Occupation is just inference from the data (suggestions), but temperament... compatibility...is pinpoint accuracy
 
Intermission said:
If you actually googled your partners/relatives you would see that it¨s absolutely correct. Occupation is just inference from the data (suggestions), but temperament... compatibility...is pinpoint accuracy
Click to expand...
Smiling and nodding.

If a male say at a bar is talking this, I'm going to the bathroom then quietly moving seats
 
Intermission said:
Australians are great people. Probably all born during good months
Click to expand...
539fd6b144f4a29960255dc9a098fad3--life-humor-jpg.jpg
 
I noticed no Aquarius' chiming in here, respect. We are the master sign 👑
 
Stalkingsquid said:
I noticed no Aquarius' chiming in here, respect. We are the master sign 👑
Click to expand...
I stayed away from that sign because I dont have much experience with it and the descriptions felt all encompassing.


But I worked with a female Aquarius briefly and heres my takeaway.

It's a vibrant zodiac sign, easy to talk to, aliveness.

What I also sensed is that she was sometimes in her vibrancy a bit overconfident. Definitely assertive.

Never arrogant, but in her fire she sometimes was too quick on the button, she might be wrong on something and even though I tell her in advance she wont budge, her confidence wasnt shook. Everything was moving forward with her. Very little procrastination, hesitation.

Does any of this ring a bell?
 
Intermission said:
I stayed away from that sign because I dont have much experience with it and the descriptions felt all encompassing.


But I worked with a female Aquarius briefly and heres my takeaway.

It's a vibrant zodiac sign, easy to talk to, aliveness.

What I also sensed is that she was sometimes in her vibrancy a bit overconfident. Definitely assertive.

Never arrogant, but in her fire she sometimes lacked thoughtfullness, that she might be wrong on something. Everything was moving forward with her. Very little procrastination, hesitation.

Does any of this ring a bell?
Click to expand...
In all honesty I'm not a big astrology believer myself, sure some of that sounds familiar, but in reading some other star signs descriptions theirs parts of some I've felt related back to me.

One thing I'll contribute is I don't usually get along with other Aquarius' it seems.
 
Stalkingsquid said:
In all honesty I'm not a big astrology believer myself, sure some of that sounds familiar, but in reading some other star signs descriptions theirs parts of some I've felt related back to me.

One thing I'll contribute is I don't usually get along with other Aquarius' it seems.
Click to expand...

What part of my description resonated with you?
 
Someone I felt is probably a pisces is Chuck Norris. Hes very mellow, calm. A wonderful human being but introverted. Chucky can be open when hes comfortable but you sense with him hes not super comfortable, a bit stiff.

Chuck Norris is indeed a pisces.

Bruce Lee was described as the total opposite in personality, and Lee is indeed a fire sign.
 
Alfred Hitchcock was a leo. He was funny, smart, but a man of few words.

Problem is he was elderly quickly. You never got to know him young. He aged horribly.

Stanley Kubrick also a leo, but Kubrick was so engrossed in his work he never showed who he truly was.

Both Hitchcok and Kubrick were assertive and alpha that are trademarks of leo.
 
The statement, entitled "Objections to Astrology", was signed by 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. They said that there is no scientific foundation for the tenets of astrology and warned the public against accepting astrological advice without question. Their criticism focused on the fact that there was no mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur:

Astronomer Carl Sagan declined to sign the statement. Sagan said he took this stance not because he thought astrology had any validity, but because he thought that the tone of the statement was authoritarian, and that dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism (while "certainly a relevant point") was not in itself convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,335
Messages
58,275,995
Members
175,990
Latest member
dobetterinc

Share this page

Back
Top