Ascending signs
Edmond Wollmann
very specific definition of the identity. It reflects the point of entry
and exit of the Sun/Moon blend and the interaction point for the
remainder of the horoscope's configurations. It indicates the definition
the identity BELIEVES it needs in order to express the idea that has
been chosen to be expressed as the overall "path". It is the "Mask" the
persona will wear while acting it's part in physical reality. Therefore,
the light of the persona will be shown and seen through the filter of
the ascendant. The planetary ruler of the ascendant (i.e. Aries
ascendant would be ruled by Mars) and it's sign and house placement,
describes the area of life (house); corroborating template focus (the
sign placement of ascendent ruler); and ease or dis-ease in it's blend
with other areas of functioning that are represented in the remainder of
the birth chart (aspects).
The physical appearance of the identity is made up of the trinity of
persona; Sun+Moon+Ascendant. Planets near the ascendant or in the house
also color this projection, self definition, and physical appearance.
ARIES- Unless Mars is in a difficult or repressive condition
(retrograde), the expression of this identity definition is ardent.
direct, vital, naturally aggressive and has a very strong need to
project the self as quickly and spontaneously as possible. Identity in
the act of becoming. The personality- no matter what other
configurations- will present itself through action and impulse.
Possibility of recklessness.
TAURUS- The self projection and definition seeks stability and
establishment. The presentation of the self is calm and focused. The
identity definition and self projection revolves around issues of worth.
Venus' position corroborates further identity definition indicies.
GEMINI- Mutable signs on the angles(1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th), reflect
dissipated energy application. Physical focus is weak, mental focus and
flexibility is strong. This ascendant will define an identity that is
expressive, articulate, diverse and needs to be seen as intelligent.
CANCER- Cancer is a very reflective and impressionable sign. As a form
of identity projection, this sensitivity will be shown by an individual
who absorbs, then reflects whatever environment they may find themselves
in. The personal projection will exude kindness, and may be rather
reserved in definition. The Sun/Moon blend will be especially important
in analysis, particularly the Moon, as this body will be the lens of the
ascendant.
LEO- Extroversion would best describe the energy of this ascendant. The
need to project a dramatic version of whatever energies are inherent
within the birth chart will be evident. Magnanimity and a breadth of
vision shun petty issues. Unless more down to earth energies are
reflected through the remainder of the horoscope, the identity may be
manipulatable through appeals to ego reinforcement or "flashy" without
substance.
VIRGO- There is a strong sense of service towards an ideal. Self
projection may be limited and focused unless the Fire element is well
represented. There is also a strong need to be analytically correct, to
say and do the "right" things. Changeability is toned down in this
mutable ascendant because of the Earth element.
LIBRA- Amiability. The need to be socially accepted will be very
apparent. Also a strong concern about the physical appearance. On the
positive side, the reflective tendencies take focus off of the self and
increase sharing. On the negative side, acquiescence makes the self`s
true stand of opinion or loyalty, elusive.
SCORPIO- The definition will be reserved, cautious, and secretive based
on an extreme fear of being taken advantage of. The empowered Scorpio
ascendant will be fearless and emotional insight keen. Depth of feeling.
Confrontation welcomed. The dis-empowered will exhibit manipulation and
little objective perception of the self. As an analogy of manipulation
fears, the game of poker serves well. The identity would need to know
all the opponent's cards (and would use any tactic to ascertain them),
and not allow anyone to know theirs, just to feel equal to the game.
SAGITTARIUS- A definition of personal freedom. Travel as an effect of
the need to expand the identity, or it's mental influence. As long as
stability is shown elsewhere, integrity is usually the mode of
operation. Beliefs and intellectual property issues, honesty or ethics
and breadth of vision may be issues of self definition.
CAPRICORN- The identity definition is very down to earth, and not likely
to indulge in speculation. The here and now is the immediate concern.
Practical and organized. A very strong belief that physical reality
exists outside the individual. Saturn's placement will be very important
in analysis.
AQUARIUS- There is a brightness of individuality expression. Being
defined differently is very important. Creativity must be applied or the
identity will find anything to "rebel" against. Uranus' position will
define what ideas and issues the identity believes it must break free
from.
PISCES- A non-threatening posture. The identity unconsciously recognizes
itself as a part or "All That Is" and may find projection in terms of
*I* distasteful. Unless strength is shown in other configurations the
definition of self may be elusive and problematic. A very sensitive and
idealistic and perhaps sentimental ascendant.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
jfred
> Because the rising sign is based on the moment of birth, it reflects a
Edmo, you're going to have to come up with some new material if there's
ever to be a Vol. 2: the Chalice of Someone Else.
--
jfred... Cahooter #14.. Neumekenology Grad #1.. W.E.F.C. #2.. Diehard #?
/server irc.powerchat.net......channel #irrelevant......to #irr is human
Member of the MysteriousAbnormalCabal (thereisnomysteriousabnormalcabal)
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
anonym™
>
> Because the rising sign is based on the moment of birth, it
...is reasonable to assume that it is as full of shit as the rest of
astrology is.
Why does your web page state that you aren't posting, asshole?
Does your personal rhythm go "lie, breathe, lie", or is it more like
"lie, lie, breathe, lie, lie"?
--
anonym™
...who guesses Ed holds his breath just to get more lies in.
"I drowned" -Ed Wollmann, lying
anonym™
>
> Edmond Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Because the rising sign is based on the moment of birth, it reflects a
>
> ever to be a Vol. 2: the Chalice of Someone Else.
Don't be silly.
He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
he spots.
Then he's going to have to print it again with corrections of all the
new errors he creates, and all the old errors he missed.
Then...
Well, you can see how this is going to consume quite a lot of his time.
jfred
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > Because the rising sign is based on the moment of birth, it
>
> ...is reasonable to assume that it is as full of shit as the rest of
> astrology is.
>
> Why does your web page state that you aren't posting, asshole?
>
> Does your personal rhythm go "lie, breathe, lie", or is it more like
> "lie, lie, breathe, lie, lie"?
He does more than just lie and breathe... he also spams boilerplate
screeds, spews venom, steals scanners and money, makes off with earnest
money, fails classes, loses accounts, wins kook awards....
Joanna Mazzotta
Jo ;-)
anonym™ wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > Because the rising sign is based on the moment of birth, it
>
> ...is reasonable to assume that it is as full of shit as the rest of
> astrology is.
>
> Why does your web page state that you aren't posting, asshole?
>
> Does your personal rhythm go "lie, breathe, lie", or is it more like
> "lie, lie, breathe, lie, lie"?
>
anonym™
>
> MOMMA MIA NYM!!!!!!!!!
> Jo ;-)
>
> anonym™ wrote:
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > >
> >
> > astrology is.
> >
> > Why does your web page state that you aren't posting, asshole?
> >
> > Does your personal rhythm go "lie, breathe, lie", or is it more like
> > "lie, lie, breathe, lie, lie"?
> >
> > --
> > anonym™
> >
> > ...who guesses Ed holds his breath just to get more lies in.
> >
> > "I drowned" -Ed Wollmann, lying
Hey, no mothers, Jo! ;-)
el...@no.spam
=?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
>he spots.
He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It is
obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding even
the most blaring errors.
el...@no.spam
jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>He does more than just lie and breathe... he also spams boilerplate
>screeds, spews venom, steals scanners and money, makes off with earnest
>money, fails classes, loses accounts, wins kook awards....
And says vile things about old girlfriends.
anonym™
I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
*himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
BWAHAHAHAH!
BlueAce69
<el...@no.spam> wrote in message news:7l6bmi$o60$1...@no.spam...
And posts to usenet with a pair of panties on his head.
anonym™
anonym™
>
> In article <3776D2BF...@pacbell.net>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
> >*himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
>
> the errors.
It'll be a piece of shit pamphlet without the errors.
>
> >BWAHAHAHAH!
>
> Exactly!
>
> --
> "DISCOVERY is for a criminal case idiot"
> -Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
>
> http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~wnidiffe/bamt/astrolies/edmond04.txt
"I told you my polite days were over."-Ed "Immature and Unstable" Wollmann
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~wnidiffe/bamt/astrolies/ed-w-con.htm
el...@no.spam
>I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
>*himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
No, it'll do little good since the book will still be shit without
the errors.
>BWAHAHAHAH!
Bill Keesing
anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > In article <37745B5C...@pacbell.net>,
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
> > >he spots.
> >
> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It is
> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding even
> > the most blaring errors.
You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
I feel sorry for that person.
> BWAHAHAHAH!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
--
Bill Keesing
Usual Disclaimers blah personal opinions blah de blah
http://users.iconz.co.nz/keesing
See Web site for PGP key
Substitute bill (a) keesing hyphen keay period gen period nz
for above email address
Tom Kerr
>
>anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
>> el...@no.spam wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <37745B5C...@pacbell.net>,
>> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
>> > >he spots.
>> >
>> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It is
>> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding even
>> > the most blaring errors.
>
>You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
>
>> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
>> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
>
>Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
>
>I feel sorry for that person.
>
Ed made an offer to me. He said that he'd pay me 10 cents per mistake I
spotted ( http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=401056633 ). At around an average
of 6 mistakes per page (my estimate), this would cost him about $300.
For the amount of work it would involve (including having to double check
*each* entry in *each* index), I considered that offer to be paltry. Since
many of the mistakes are not simply typos but are actually gross abuses of
English grammar, the amount of work needed to correct the text would take many
days, if not weeks or even months.
<snip>
jfred
Of course it would depend on what you feel "correcting the text"
includes. There are a lot of basic grammatical and spelling errors --
some of which are truly mangled English. But there are also sentences,
paragraphs and sections that need to be completely rewritten if they are
to make any sense. And then there's the stuff that's just plain wrong --
would you take responsibility for that, and do any research necessary to
correct the many factual and logical problems? Research would also be
required to credit those whose work has been "borrowed" without proper
attribution. And then there's the chore of integrating the indexes....
Edmo would be getting a bargain for his $300 if you just corrected the
basic spelling and grammar problems. If you also included any of the
other matters, that amount wouldn't even begin to cover your time and
frustration.
el...@no.spam
jfred <jf...@think.different> wrote:
>But there are also sentences,
>paragraphs and sections that need to be completely rewritten if they are
>to make any sense.
That assumes there is any sense to be made.
Bill Keesing
Tom Kerr <t...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7l9m3q$2mue$1...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <93060255...@news.iconz.co.nz>, "Bill Keesing"
<u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> >
> >anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
> >> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >> >
> >> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It
is
> >> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding
even
> >> > the most blaring errors.
> >
> >You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
> >
> >> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
> >> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
> >
> >Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
> >
> >I feel sorry for that person.
> >
>
> Ed made an offer to me. He said that he'd pay me 10 cents per mistake I
> spotted ( http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=401056633 ). At around an
average
> of 6 mistakes per page (my estimate), this would cost him about $300.
Nice, if if bit frugal, money, but I can think of one major disadvantage.
You would have to actually read the damned book *shudder*
> For the amount of work it would involve (including having to double check
> *each* entry in *each* index), I considered that offer to be paltry. Since
> many of the mistakes are not simply typos but are actually gross abuses of
> English grammar, the amount of work needed to correct the text would take
many
> days, if not weeks or even months.
how about 10c per error found and 20c per error fixed.
:-)
Edmond Wollmann
Tom Kerr wrote:
>
> In article <93060255...@news.iconz.co.nz>, "Bill Keesing" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> >
> >anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
> >> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <37745B5C...@pacbell.net>,
> >> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
> >> > >he spots.
> >> >
> >> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It is
> >> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding even
> >> > the most blaring errors.
> >
> >You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
> >
> >> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
> >> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
> >
> >Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
> >
> >I feel sorry for that person.
> >
>
> Ed made an offer to me. He said that he'd pay me 10 cents per mistake I
SNIP!
It has been corrected. End of off topic harassment.
anonym™
>
> metapsych removed NANAU added to document Tom's continued abuse.
>
> Tom Kerr wrote:
> >
> > In article <93060255...@news.iconz.co.nz>, "Bill Keesing" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > >anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
> > >> el...@no.spam wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > In article <37745B5C...@pacbell.net>,
> > >> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >He still has to reprint Volume 1 with corrections of all of the errors
> > >> > >he spots.
> > >> >
> > >> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It is
> > >> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding even
> > >> > the most blaring errors.
> > >
> > >You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
> > >
> > >> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
> > >> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
> > >
> > >Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
> > >
> > >I feel sorry for that person.
> > >
> >
> > Ed made an offer to me. He said that he'd pay me 10 cents per mistake I
>
> SNIP!
> It has been corrected.
No it hasn't, you liar!
My copy is STILL full of grammatical, logical, punctuation, and spelling errors!
And you haven;t published a second edition with corrections yet!
>End of off topic harassment.
You mean you won't harass Tom any more?
Bill Keesing
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:377BAC...@nospam.net...
> metapsych removed NANAU added to document Tom's continued abuse.
Ooops.
You saying ALL of the errors have been fixed now, Edmo?
So are you ready for another print of 20 or so then? Collected that many
cans again! How many shopping trundlers full was that?
> End of off topic harassment.
Sop you admit you have been harrassing nanau again? Well done Edmo.
Bill Keesing
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > metapsych removed NANAU added to document Tom's continued abuse.
> >
Well, it is Edmo.
> My copy is STILL full of grammatical, logical, punctuation, and spelling
errors!
ROFL!
> And you haven;t published a second edition with corrections yet!
Maybe hae has collected enough cans this time.
> >End of off topic harassment.
>
> You mean you won't harass Tom any more?
Or nanau for that matter.
Pamela Gross
wrote:
>
>Tom Kerr <t...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:7l9m3q$2mue$1...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <93060255...@news.iconz.co.nz>, "Bill Keesing"
><u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >anonymT <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3776D2BF...@pacbell.net...
>> >> el...@no.spam wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > He spots? Don't you mean all the ones the "spinics" laught at? It
>is
>> >> > obvious from the first printing that Edie isn't capable of finding
>even
>> >> > the most blaring errors.
>> >
>> >You reckon he will fix the back cover this time?
>> >
>> >> I agree. But he recently said that he was going to proofread the thing
>> >> *himself* for the second printing. Like THAT is going to do any good!
>> >
>> >Then who will proof read it? And will Edmo pay for his/her treatment?
>> >
>> >I feel sorry for that person.
>> >
>>
>> Ed made an offer to me. He said that he'd pay me 10 cents per mistake I
>> spotted ( http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=401056633 ). At around an
>average
>> of 6 mistakes per page (my estimate), this would cost him about $300.
>
>Nice, if if bit frugal, money, but I can think of one major disadvantage.
>You would have to actually read the damned book *shudder*
>
>> For the amount of work it would involve (including having to double check
>> *each* entry in *each* index), I considered that offer to be paltry. Since
>> many of the mistakes are not simply typos but are actually gross abuses of
>> English grammar, the amount of work needed to correct the text would take
>many
>> days, if not weeks or even months.
>
>how about 10c per error found and 20c per error fixed.
>
>:-)
You all need an agent or contract negotiator or something!
Pam
get paid by the HOUR for this one
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com
Rheumatic Disease Web Site:
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc
Bill Keesing
Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:37a423e5...@206.214.99.8...
No thankyou! As I said, the disadvantage of the job is having to read the
damned thing.