Saturn's SR on George Bush Sun
Edmond Wollmann
(especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Pedantus
"Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FB275...@earthlink.net...
> Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
> (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
> Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann
Well, wouldn't be a lot easier to either agree or disagree based on
specific details of the events foreshadowed , using the exact dates of those
events...like the undoing of shoelaces by Sun aspect (x) Planet (y) from
mid-pisces..whatever?
Rog
Michael Rideout
[Saturn's SR on George Bush Sun]
> Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
> (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
> Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
I haven't been following his chart, but I'm going to go out on a limb and
disagree. The basis for my opinion is what happened the first time that
transiting Saturn conjoined his natal Sun, back in 1974/1975 (exact hits on
August 13, 1974; January 27, 1975; and April 28, 1975). He was attending
Harvard Business School, from which he graduated with an MBA in 1975. Then he
moved back to Midland, Texas and founded his own oil and gas company (Arbusto)
in 1975.
If the past is any indication, it looks to me like Bush might have a hard time
in 2005/2006, when transiting Saturn will conjoin his natal Mercury and natal
Pluto. The last time that happened he was arrested in Maine for driving under
the influence (on September 4, 1976), pleaded guilty, was fined, and had his
driving privileges suspended. It's interesting that transiting Neptune was
sesquisquare his natal Saturn at that time, and that seems more relevant to the
nature of the event.
I know it isn't safe to expect that the same sorts of events will recur this
time around. But nevertheless, transiting Saturn passing over his natal Sun
appears to be more about working to attain his personal ambitions, whereas
transiting Saturn passing over his natal Mercury and natal Pluto appear to be
more about needing to deal with the consequences of his decisions and possibly
being forced to make changes (transform).
Michael Rideout
Ali
wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann (arctur...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>[Saturn's SR on George Bush Sun]
>> Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
>> (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
>> Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
Wishful thinking, imo. For one thing, Saturn dets in his sign...and
we've already seen how $ and position have been able to virtually
nullify the man's karmic liabilities- i.e., his inherent mediocrity.
Maybe the transit will heighten that in some fashion.[we can always
hope]
I usually identify what happens to the CEO with what happens to the
nation's sun....and...given that they're conjoined? Is that correct?
I was expecting something dramatic from Saturn's retro transit over
the U.S. sun, along with the fullmoon and a few other things in a few,
but now I'm just afraid that Saturn just isn't its old irascible self
in Cancer.
Maybe those persons who "get away with murder" have Saturn well- or
un- aspected in Cancer...or Aries.
I haven't looked at when Saturn goes back direct over the two
positions, next spring sometime, I'd reckon. Maybe then something
juicy will occur.
However, just saw this this a.m.:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20031113/pl_nm/bush_britain_expats_dc
>I haven't been following his chart, but I'm going to go out on a limb and
>disagree. The basis for my opinion is what happened the first time that
>transiting Saturn conjoined his natal Sun, back in 1974/1975 (exact hits on
>August 13, 1974; January 27, 1975; and April 28, 1975). He was attending
>Harvard Business School, from which he graduated with an MBA in 1975. Then he
>moved back to Midland, Texas and founded his own oil and gas company (Arbusto)
>in 1975.
>
>If the past is any indication, it looks to me like Bush might have a hard time
>in 2005/2006, when transiting Saturn will conjoin his natal Mercury and natal
>Pluto. The last time that happened he was arrested in Maine for driving under
>the influence (on September 4, 1976), pleaded guilty, was fined, and had his
>driving privileges suspended. It's interesting that transiting Neptune was
>sesquisquare his natal Saturn at that time, and that seems more relevant to the
>nature of the event.
But, given any credence to his history of "alleged" personal coverups,
we really don't know what happened in 74-75. He's 12th house sun?
Maybe the Saturn-Sun return will bring to light whatever was happening
last time around.
>I know it isn't safe to expect that the same sorts of events will recur this
>time around. But nevertheless, transiting Saturn passing over his natal Sun
>appears to be more about working to attain his personal ambitions, whereas
>transiting Saturn passing over his natal Mercury and natal Pluto appear to be
>more about needing to deal with the consequences of his decisions and possibly
>being forced to make changes (transform).
>
>Michael Rideout
Michael Rideout
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:50:18 CST, seagt...@aol.com (Michael Rideout)
> wrote:
[...]
> >I haven't been following his chart, but I'm going to go out on a limb and
> >disagree. The basis for my opinion is what happened the first time that
> >transiting Saturn conjoined his natal Sun, back in 1974/1975 (exact hits on
> >August 13, 1974; January 27, 1975; and April 28, 1975). He was attending
> >Harvard Business School, from which he graduated with an MBA in 1975. Then
he
> >moved back to Midland, Texas and founded his own oil and gas company
(Arbusto)
> >in 1975.
> >
> >If the past is any indication, it looks to me like Bush might have a hard
time
> >in 2005/2006, when transiting Saturn will conjoin his natal Mercury and
natal
> >Pluto. The last time that happened he was arrested in Maine for driving
under
> >the influence (on September 4, 1976), pleaded guilty, was fined, and had his
> >driving privileges suspended. It's interesting that transiting Neptune was
> >sesquisquare his natal Saturn at that time, and that seems more relevant to
the
> >nature of the event.
>
> But, given any credence to his history of "alleged" personal coverups,
> we really don't know what happened in 74-75.
>From what I read on the internet last night before I posted my comment, the
period of time that you're referring to seems to be from part of 1972 through
part of 1974, and it isn't clear whether it ended in May, 1974 or in October,
1974. If it was through October, 1974, then it does include the first pass of
transiting Saturn over his natal Sun. But as far as I was able to tell, that
refers to the end of his military duty, and there were no alleged incidents
from August, 1974 that are supposedly being covered up. The alleged coverups
seem to be from the period preceding 1974, or *before* transiting Saturn
conjoined his natal Sun.
I don't pretend to know about all of the allegations, and I have no idea who to
believe regarding them. But if I'm going to try to figure out how transiting
Saturn conjunct his natal Sun manifested in Bush's life, then I prefer to
connect it with one or two known events that fell within the period of that
conjunction, rather than any mountain of alleged coverups that *preceded* the
period of the conjunction. As far as I could tell from my search on the
internet last night, the only "solid" event that I feel I can safely connect to
that conjunction is Bush receiving his MBA from Harvard in 1975, which does
seem like an appropriate manifestation of that conjunction; and if his
graduation was in mid-spring of 1975, then the timing fits well with the third
and final pass of transiting Saturn over his natal Sun.
One of the things that's difficult to do when analyzing someone's chart--
especially the chart of a politician-- is to keep one's personal feelings for
or against that person out of the analysis. It's easy to spin astrological
"readings" that praise or condemn someone, depending on whether we like or
dislike that person. Those sorts of "readings" don't impress me very much.
I'm more impressed by a level-headed "reading" that points out both the "good"
and the "bad," and does so in a manner that doesn't reveal whether the
astrologer likes or dislikes the native in question. If I can tell that the
astrologer obviously likes or dislikes the person, then I don't feel that I can
really trust the astrologer's interpretation, because I can't be certain which
(if any) parts of the interpretation weren't slanted by the astrologer's
personal feelings.
Anyway, I think it seems more likely that any "fall from grace" which might (or
might not) be waiting in Bush's future will come around the time that
transiting Saturn passes over his natal Mercury and natal Pluto in 2005 and
2006-- probably in 2006, shortly after the final pass over his natal Pluto.
Note that I'm *not* referring to any loss of popularity or public approval, but
to something more "official" than that. And I'm not going to speculate on
what-- if anything-- that might be. I'm just saying that if anything "big"
*is* going to happen, then I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm not expecting
it until mid-2006. On the other hand, that assessment is based solely on
transiting Saturn's conjunction with his natal Mercury and natal Pluto, and
completely ignores other factors, such as transiting Pluto opposing his natal
Uranus.
Michael Rideout
Boyd Blaire
<rlsatterlee[delete_this]@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> "Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3FB275...@earthlink.net...
> > Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
> > (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
> > Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the
way "out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.
His death would be a welcome event.
> Well, wouldn't be a lot easier to either agree or disagree based on
> specific details of the events foreshadowed , using the exact dates of those
> events...like the undoing of shoelaces by Sun aspect (x) Planet (y) from
> mid-pisces..whatever?
The silly thing about "Edmond Wollmann" making such a "prediction" is
that he made it *AFTER* the rest of the industrial world has already
said the same thing.
> Rog
H
"Boyd Blaire" <bbl...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:boun93$1iitud$1...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
..
>
> That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the
> way "out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.
>
> His death would be a welcome event.
>
Any person who would state that someone's death would be a "welcome event"
is in serious need of psychological counseling. I suggest you get some
help--your statement is not one that comes from a mentally stable person.
H
Astrology Cycles
"Michael Rideout" <seagt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031113221659...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> As far as I could tell from my search on the
> internet last night, the only "solid" event that I feel I can safely
connect to
> that conjunction is Bush receiving his MBA from Harvard in 1975, which
does
> seem like an appropriate manifestation of that conjunction; and if his
> graduation was in mid-spring of 1975, then the timing fits well with the
third
> and final pass of transiting Saturn over his natal Sun.
I think 'Graduation' is a great concept for Saturn transits to the Sun,
because there is the combination of results of long-term hard work (Saturn)
and the self shining out. However they can also correlate with failure,
i.e. a failed graduation. That's what I would see as the potential downside
for this transit.
Pedantus
"Astrology Cycles" <astroNOlo...@AhotmailM.com> wrote in message
news:bp2l71$i9n$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Hmmm...isn't "graduation" inevitable for nearly everyone in the class? Its
like an airline disaster that didn't happen...:) Just stay in your seat ,
eat the crap they feed ya, and don't *ever* open a window.
JDPoeland
Date: 11/13/2003 7:41 PM ST
>>Any person who would state that someone's death would be a "welcome event" is
in serious need of psychological counseling. I suggest you get some help --
your statement is not one that comes from a mentally stable person. >H <<
Guess you weren't one of the millions of Patriotic Americans cheering on the
attack of Iraq and bin Laden's death, eh!?
Well, good for you!! I'd not argue that the majority of the body politic is
mentally healthy! ;-')
Jim
JDPoeland
Date: 11/13/2003 7:22 PM PST wrote:
>>That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the way
"out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.<<
It appears that even some of the Na'tl mainstream media are FINALLY getting on
his case, too!? So, it gives one hope! ;-')
seagt...@aol.com (Michael Rideout)
Date: 11/12/2003 9:50 PM PST
>>I haven't been following his chart, but I'm going to go out on a limb and
disagree. The basis for my opinion is what happened the first time that
transiting Saturn conjoined his natal Sun, back in 1974/1975 (exact hits on
August 13, 1974; January 27, 1975; and April 28, 1975). He was attending
Harvard [etc.] Then he
moved back to Midland, Texas and founded his own oil and gas company (Arbusto)
in 1975.<<
The latter is misleading! If my daddy's friends have given me 7-800K, I'd have
"my" own Co., too!! His was a miserable failure, btw; they never hit even one
well..Then it was bought out by some nmore of his daddy's from for $2-3Mil.
That/those are NOTHING like MY "adverse: Saturn transists!!!
>>If the past is any indication, it looks to me like Bush might have a hard
time in 2005/2006, when transiting Saturn will conjoin his natal Mercury and
natal Pluto.<<
MUCH too long to wait for my tastes!! However, one can hope that the coming
T-Saturn conj his Sun (et al.) will bring some kind of justifed retribution,
but he'll probably just invade Syria or Iran instead!? However, these below --
for those willing to look -- MAY offer such a comeuppance!? (As there is talk
of a Congressional investigation into the family's long-term business
practices!)
Jim
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/com-buchanan.html
BUSH-NAZI LINK CONFIRMED
Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with
Nazis -- Even After Pearl Harbor
by John Buchanan (Exclusive to the New Hampshire Gazette)
AND:
BUSH-NAZI DEALINGS CONTINUED UNTIL 1951 - FEDERAL DOCUMENTS
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
Exclusive to The New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3 November 7, 2003
[Founded in 1756, The New Hampshire Gazette is The Nation's Oldest Newspaper.]
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann (arctur...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> [Saturn's SR on George Bush Sun]
> > Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
> > (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
> > Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
> I haven't been following his chart, but I'm going to go out on a limb and
> disagree. The basis for my opinion is what happened the first time that
OK, I have placed a few of the more important development chart points
in my view for all to review:
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/chart_display.htm
> transiting Saturn conjoined his natal Sun, back in 1974/1975 (exact hits on
> August 13, 1974; January 27, 1975; and April 28, 1975). He was attending
> Harvard Business School, from which he graduated with an MBA in 1975. Then he
> moved back to Midland, Texas and founded his own oil and gas company (Arbusto)
> in 1975.
OK, I will look at those charts and compare.
> If the past is any indication, it looks to me like Bush might have a hard time
> in 2005/2006, when transiting Saturn will conjoin his natal Mercury and natal
> Pluto. The last time that happened he was arrested in Maine for driving under
> the influence (on September 4, 1976), pleaded guilty, was fined, and had his
> driving privileges suspended. It's interesting that transiting Neptune was
> sesquisquare his natal Saturn at that time, and that seems more relevant to the
> nature of the event.
What were the co-aspects? By this I mean, the overall configurations
that pointed to the actual manifested events along with the aspect you
cite? You stated Neptune's involvement, I will look for more.
> I know it isn't safe to expect that the same sorts of events will recur this
> time around. But nevertheless, transiting Saturn passing over his natal Sun
> appears to be more about working to attain his personal ambitions, whereas
True, but this time around it involves the world agreement with his
ambitions, not just his graduation. This is much more challenging and
complicated than the first time around.
> transiting Saturn passing over his natal Mercury and natal Pluto appear to be
> more about needing to deal with the consequences of his decisions and possibly
> being forced to make changes (transform).
OK, so what does Neptune opposing it (Pluto) right now signify? To me,
this is the dissolution of his most cherished inner beliefs (Pluto
rules 4 and Neptune rules 8--others values).
Thanks for your comments and reply:-)
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level
of thinking we were at when we created them."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Boyd Blaire" <bbl...@mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:boun93$1iitud$1...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the
> > way "out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.
> >
> > His death would be a welcome event.
> Any person who would state that someone's death would be a "welcome event"
> is in serious need of psychological counseling. I suggest you get some
> help--your statement is not one that comes from a mentally stable person.
While I may be "in need of serious counseling," I stand by my opinion
that the world would be and will be vastly better off without Bush2 in
it. Homicidal sociopaths tend to be bad for the neighborhood; when
they have nuclear weapons and bombers, they are bad for the world.
H
"Desertphile" <deser...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:bp39vr$1krati$2...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
Well you can change your posting name all you want David, but for someone
like you who is the head of an organization called the Coyote Wicca CHURCH
and who calls himself the "high priest" (or whatever that arrogant title is
you gave yourself on your website) and says Bush's death would be a welcome
event, is nothing short of absurd. Your remarks on this board have been
nothing but pure hypocritical crap. Just what does your "church" do, or
should I say cult -- plot the demise of people or what? Heck think what you
want about Bush, but as much as you apparently abhore Bush, I felt the same
about Clinton-- for turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse and urinating
on family values. Yet I would never in a million years have wished the guy
dead.
I don't know if you have any daughters David, but if you think Bush is bad,
just what do you think about Saddam and his sons who raped, tortured and
killed women and children? Heck he gassed his own people! Oh--let me guess--
it's not YOUR problem right? If you think Saddam should not have been
ousted, then you are even crazier than I thought. The homicidal sociopaths
are those who rammed a plane into the WTC so they could get to "allah". Pure
insanity. I am so sick of people using religion as a license to kill or a
license to beat people over the head with their "beliefs".
And if you are so hip on ridding the world of evil, then gripe about Al
Quaeda.
H
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <g3etb.1051$n56...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "H"
<adb...@zerospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Desertphile" <deser...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>news:bp39vr$1krati$2...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:41:12 CST, "H" <adb...@zerospamhotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Boyd Blaire" <bbl...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:boun93$1iitud$1...@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> > > That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the
>> > > way "out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.
>> > >
>> > > His death would be a welcome event.
>>
>> > Any person who would state that someone's death would be a "welcome
>> > event" is in serious need of psychological counseling. I suggest you
>> > get some help--your statement is not one that comes from a mentally
>> > stable person.
>>
>> While I may be "in need of serious counseling," I stand by my opinion
>> that the world would be and will be vastly better off without Bush2 in
>> it. Homicidal sociopaths tend to be bad for the neighborhood; when
>> they have nuclear weapons and bombers, they are bad for the world.
>
>Well you can change your posting name all you want David,
RM: Let's keep on the straight and narrow here if we're going to be
critical.
David has not attempted to conceal his identity on this newsgroup. He
was only using that email address temporarily.
>but for someone
>like you who is the head of an organization called the Coyote Wicca CHURCH
>and who calls himself the "high priest" (or whatever that arrogant title is
>you gave yourself on your website) and says Bush's death would be a welcome
>event, is nothing short of absurd.
RM: In your country the law respects registered churches and their
leaders' titles, and it is innapropriate to criticise David's title -
whether it was self given or not.
>Your remarks on this board have been
>nothing but pure hypocritical crap. Just what does your "church" do, or
>should I say cult -- plot the demise of people or what?
RM: It is a church in U.S. law, and cults are not necessarily negative
organizations, but there is a criteria of course for defining cults.
>Heck think what you
>want about Bush, but as much as you apparently abhore Bush, I felt the same
>about Clinton-- for turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse and urinating
>on family values. Yet I would never in a million years have wished the guy
>dead.
RM: No it's not the sort of comment we want to be associated with on
the aamod board because none of us want to be tainted by stuff like
that.
Perhaps you would consider removing it at google, so that when the
post falls off the aamod board it will disappear from sight.
>
[.....]
>
>
>
>H
Ray
H
"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:3fb57...@news.chariot.net.au...
>
..
> >
> >Well you can change your posting name all you want David,
>
> RM: Let's keep on the straight and narrow here if we're going to be
> critical.
> David has not attempted to conceal his identity on this newsgroup. He
> was only using that email address temporarily.
I said POSTING NAME Ray--not e-mail address. I could use 5 different e-mail
addies and still post as "H". Anyone knows that.
>
> RM: In your country the law respects registered churches and their
> leaders' titles, and it is innapropriate to criticise David's title -
> whether it was self given or not.
That's your opinion Ray. Somehow I can't picture any "priest" stating in
public that Bush's death would be a welcome event-- what a crock.
And let me enlighten you about the U.S. Ray--- any fool can apply for
non-profit status as a religious organization. Here in my state alone it
runs rampant, and they are set up to avoid paying taxes while funneling
another business's revenue through it--tax free. So don' t even get on some
high horse about religious orgs that someone from a hot dog stand could set
up. We have more "reverends" and "ministers" in this state driving around in
Mercedes thanks to "donations" than you can shake a stick at. Yes--
corruption is alive and well . Many orgs have been investigated and busted
over the years, and we had the biggest non-profit religious organization
case in U.S. History right here in my state. The founding members were
indicted on fraud, racketeering and theft. How's that for "Religion"?
Thousands of innocent investors in the "religious" organization lost close
to 600 million bucks thanks to the scoundrels who founded it. The only thing
worth mentioning is some had the decency to plead guilty.
It is true, that I myself could go out and set up a non-profit religious org
and give myself the title "Reverend Beeeyotch". IOW Titles don't mean squat
. It's people like you that add to the naivete that "religious" orgs deserve
automatic respect when in fact, it's that very belief that can con people
out of a load of cash, thinking they are donating in good faith. Religious
and cult fraud is huge in this country, as well as a slew of other types of
non-profit organizations. Frankly it's practically an epidemic if you will,
and those of us who live in states where it frequently happens, do chortle
when we see someone register a religious org , because of all the fraud.
This is not some new development Ray--for pete's sake.
>
> >Heck think what you
> >want about Bush, but as much as you apparently abhore Bush, I felt the
same
> >about Clinton-- for turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse and
urinating
> >on family values. Yet I would never in a million years have wished the
guy
> >dead.
>
> RM: No it's not the sort of comment we want to be associated with on
> the aamod board because none of us want to be tainted by stuff like
> that.
Shades of censorship Ray? "tainted" by what-- The word "urination"? The word
"whorehouse"? Oh come on now this is absurd. Get down from that high horse
before you fall off. geez... neither word is even categorized as profanity.
It's acceptable for one newsgroup poster to wish for Bush's death but my
comments about Clinton are inappropriate? Oh Please, enough of the hypocrisy
already. Ya know Ray-- scream at me if I ever use the "F" word on this
board, but do not tell me that my opinion is out of line. And for the
record-- let me enlighten you about something else that may ring a bell.
Here in the U.S. the courts ruled that neither a moderator nor administrator
of a newsgroup, or the owner of a website or blog, can be held legally
responsible for what a poster posts on their own. That is the law.
So if you think I should be censored for giving my opinion about Clinton--
hey knock yourself out . The hypocrisy is astounding. Here in America,
giving your opinion is legal and a constitutional right. You may not agree
with mine, and I may not agree with yours--but it is a right that we have in
this country.
H
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <ougtb.1181$n56....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "H"
<adb...@zerospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3fb57...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>..
>> >
>> >Well you can change your posting name all you want David,
>>
>> RM: Let's keep on the straight and narrow here if we're going to be
>> critical. David has not attempted to conceal his identity on this
>> newsgroup. He was only using that email address temporarily.
>
>I said POSTING NAME Ray--not e-mail address. I could use 5 different e-mail
>addies and still post as "H". Anyone knows that.
RM: David was not *using* a name on all his posts, so how could he
have changed it?
>
>>
>> RM: In your country the law respects registered churches and their
>> leaders' titles, and it is innapropriate to criticise David's title -
>> whether it was self given or not.
>
>That's your opinion Ray. Somehow I can't picture any "priest" stating in
>public that Bush's death would be a welcome event-- what a crock.
>
>And let me enlighten you about the U.S. Ray--- any fool can apply for
>non-profit status as a religious organization. [....]
RM: Yes it's common knowledge around the world, but it is still
nevertheless legal and the organisers or the churches should not be
ridiculed without a reason.
>
>It is true, that I myself could go out and set up a non-profit religious org
>and give myself the title "Reverend Beeeyotch". IOW Titles don't mean squat
RM: Well normally a title may not, but in your case yes your chosen
name
would.
>. It's people like you that add to the naivete that "religious" orgs deserve
>automatic respect when in fact, it's that very belief that can con people
>out of a load of cash, thinking they are donating in good faith. Religious
>and cult fraud is huge in this country, as well as a slew of other types of
>non-profit organizations. Frankly it's practically an epidemic if you will,
>and those of us who live in states where it frequently happens, do chortle
>when we see someone register a religious org , because of all the fraud.
>This is not some new development Ray--for pete's sake.
RM: Most people would know this, but one reason why those laws exist,
is to protect minority groups from bigotry and prejudice and also to
provide equal opportunity.
>
>>
>> > Heck think what you
>> > want about Bush, but as much as you apparently abhore Bush, I felt the
>> > same about Clinton-- for turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse and
>> > urinating on family values. Yet I would never in a million years have
>> > wished the guy dead.
>>
>> RM: No it's not the sort of comment we want to be associated with on
>> the aamod board because none of us want to be tainted by stuff like
>> that.
>
>Shades of censorship Ray? "tainted" by what-- The word "urination"? The word
>"whorehouse"? Oh come on now this is absurd. Get down from that high horse
>before you fall off. geez... neither word is even categorized as profanity.
RM: Hahahah
hahahaha
No, I was referring to the comment under discussion (by David).
hahaha
>
>It's acceptable for one newsgroup poster to wish for Bush's death but my
>comments about Clinton are inappropriate?
RM: No, it's not acceptable by most people.
>Oh Please, enough of the hypocrisy
>already. Ya know Ray-- scream at me if I ever use the "F" word on this
>board, but do not tell me that my opinion is out of line. And for the
>record-- let me enlighten you about something else that may ring a bell.
>Here in the U.S. the courts ruled that neither a moderator nor administrator
>of a newsgroup, or the owner of a website or blog, can be held legally
>responsible for what a poster posts on their own. That is the law.
RM: But can you say *when* that was passed into law? That's the key
issue; and until we get an answer we need to assume that the old law
was in existence in June, 2001.
>
>So if you think I should be censored for giving my opinion about Clinton--
>hey knock yourself out . The hypocrisy is astounding. Here in America,
>giving your opinion is legal and a constitutional right. You may not agree
>with mine, and I may not agree with yours--but it is a right that we have in
>this country.
RM: This propaganda is looked upon with amusement in the other Western
countries. It's *normal* in all civilised countries to have freedom of
speech.
>
>H
Ray
Ali
wrote:
absolutely. Of course, the seriousness of the context "should"
determine objectivity.
If we're actually indulging in our American heritage pasttime of
dissing the Head-Fed, conspiracy theories,etc. ( see 9th Cap Pluto
opp. 3rd Can. Mer.retro), then it's perhaps 66% schmooze, 34%
astrology. <grin> which may, in any event, yield some glimmers of
astrologic, but should be seen fwiw.
>Anyway, I think it seems more likely that any "fall from grace" which might (or
>might not) be waiting in Bush's future will come around the time that
>transiting Saturn passes over his natal Mercury and natal Pluto in 2005 and
>2006-- probably in 2006, shortly after the final pass over his natal Pluto.
>Note that I'm *not* referring to any loss of popularity or public approval, but
>to something more "official" than that. And I'm not going to speculate on
>what-- if anything-- that might be. I'm just saying that if anything "big"
>*is* going to happen, then I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm not expecting
>it until mid-2006. On the other hand, that assessment is based solely on
>transiting Saturn's conjunction with his natal Mercury and natal Pluto, and
>completely ignores other factors, such as transiting Pluto opposing his natal
>Uranus.
>
>Michael Rideout
That might-or-might-not "fall from grace" part is what interests me.
(Some) People want him out so bad, see him in such a bad light, they
think his defeat is a foregone. But he is Leo rising, and has a very
focused horoscope....for such a seemingly mediocre fellow.
If I did look at transiting Pluto opposing his natal Uranus, I'd also
be looking at when it transited his Southnode...and what the
transiting nodes were doing at the time.
Has no one remarked on the dynamic of his Uranus [Gem] trine Jupiter
[Lib], neatly bisected by his Ascendant/Venus in Leo- which
encompasses all his planets?
To me, that planetary "spread" is a thunderbolt revelation of the
man's character, when taken along with his virtually unaspected Cancer
Sun, unaspected 12th Cancer Saturn, and Leo ascendant...it very much
fits the Garry Trudeau caricature of the Imperial President-
This is a man who knows how to play the game in order to get what he
wants, and has done so to the fullest- even if it included breaking
the law to get the White House.Very much the Republican answer to John
Kennedy, in terms of "being groomed for the White House" by his
family, no matter what we may think of him personally. Alot of his
natal aspects coincide with the aforementioned July 4, 1776 chart-
And I think the man has mentioned he feels he is an "instrument of
Providence"- looking at his chart after the fact, it is more obvious
where that comes from....and why he would feel no conflict stepping
over an Al Gore who beat him legitimately in the popular vote, and
most probably in the electoral vote.
As I mentioned earlier, the detrimented and unaspected Saturn, along
with a Sun conjunct the U.S. natal Sun could very much lead to him
feeling legitimately that "l'etat, c'est moi"-
He will not go out quietly, that's for certain. We can expect all
sorts of manipulation of economic statistics, growth, etc. in the
next 11 months. Whatever it takes him and his crew to get re-elected.
H
>
>
> RM: David was not *using* a name on all his posts, so how could he
> have changed it?
Ray--look in your newsgroup reader and look at the column that says FROM:
'Boyd Blaire' went to 'Desertphile'
Really--it's not a big deal, why you chose to make it so, after reading my
post to David is beyond me. To be honest-- you're as bad as I am. You're
criticizing me for criticizing someone else ;-)
>
> RM: Yes it's common knowledge around the world, but it is still
> nevertheless legal and the organisers or the churches should not be
> ridiculed without a reason.
Again, that is your opinion not a fact, and I say I am entitled to give mine
which is yeah-- it's pretty darn nutty for someone to call himself a
"priest" and wish someone dead. So do not imply that someone deserves to be
treated with the respect of a priest when clearly they speak in a fashion
that is anything BUT like a priest. Besides Ray, respect is not a given
right--it's something that is earned.
> >>
> >> > Heck think what you
> >> > want about Bush, but as much as you apparently abhore Bush, I felt
the
> >> > same about Clinton-- for turning the Whitehouse into a whorehouse and
> >> > urinating on family values. Yet I would never in a million years have
> >> > wished the guy dead.
> >>
> >> RM: No it's not the sort of comment we want to be associated with on
> >> the aamod board because none of us want to be tainted by stuff like
> >> that.
> >
> >Shades of censorship Ray? "tainted" by what-- The word "urination"? The
word
> >"whorehouse"? Oh come on now this is absurd. Get down from that high
horse
> >before you fall off. geez... neither word is even categorized as
profanity.
>
> RM: Hahahah
>
> hahahaha
>
> No, I was referring to the comment under discussion (by David).
hmmm then why did you stick your comment right under mine, smarty pants?
What is this--newsgroup post hell day? LOL!
> >
> >It's acceptable for one newsgroup poster to wish for Bush's death but my
> >comments about Clinton are inappropriate?
>
> RM: No, it's not acceptable by most people.
Thank God.
> RM: But can you say *when* that was passed into law? That's the key
> issue; and until we get an answer we need to assume that the old law
> was in existence in June, 2001.
Now you don't think I'm going to waste my time looking that up do you? I
can't change the past but I can affect the here and now. To be honest I
don't know when it came into existence, I just remember reading a lawyer's
comments about it on the net. People have no case trying to sue the wrong
people. Actually I wish people would start to be fined for filing frivelous
lawsuits. The only people who make money are the lawyers.
>
> RM: This propaganda is looked upon with amusement in the other Western
> countries. It's *normal* in all civilised countries to have freedom of
> speech.
> >
Then don't stomp on mine ;-)
H
Astrology Cycles
"Pedantus" <rlsatterlee[delete_this]@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UM6tb.109601$ZC4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Hmmm...isn't "graduation" inevitable for nearly everyone in the class?
Its
> like an airline disaster that didn't happen...:) Just stay in your seat ,
> eat the crap they feed ya, and don't *ever* open a window.
>
Doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <rOjtb.1428$n56...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "H"
<adb...@zerospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3fb5a...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>>
>> RM: David was not *using* a name on all his posts, so how could he
>> have changed it?
>
>Ray--look in your newsgroup reader and look at the column that says FROM:
>'Boyd Blaire' went to 'Desertphile'
>
>Really--it's not a big deal, why you chose to make it so, after reading my
>post to David is beyond me.
RM: You indicated that David was changing his posting details. I was
merely pointing out that the change was made for a perfectly normal
reason in case anyone thought your comment was implying deceit or
evasion.
>To be honest-- you're as bad as I am. You're
>criticizing me for criticizing someone else ;-)
>
RM: It's one of the more productive things about usenet. For all I
know, someone may come in and point out my errors, and then I / we
learn something new.
>>
>> RM: Yes it's common knowledge around the world, but it is still
>> nevertheless legal and the organisers or the churches should not be
>> ridiculed without a reason.
>
>Again, that is your opinion not a fact, and I say I am entitled to give mine
>which is yeah-- it's pretty darn nutty for someone to call himself a
>"priest" and wish someone dead. So do not imply that someone deserves to be
>treated with the respect of a priest when clearly they speak in a fashion
>that is anything BUT like a priest. Besides Ray, respect is not a given
>right--it's something that is earned.
RM: Of course you have a right (if not a moral duty) to criticise
David for what he said about the U.S. President, but it's not right to
criticise a registered church without evidence.
RM: My recollection is that after June, 2001 the newspapers were still
running stories about ~anyone~ being a potential target.
>Actually I wish people would start to be fined for filing frivelous
>lawsuits. The only people who make money are the lawyers.
RM: Geez, for a millisecond there I thought you were going to say
""filing frivelous posts".
>
>>
>> RM: This propaganda is looked upon with amusement in the other Western
>> countries. It's *normal* in all civilised countries to have freedom of
>> speech.
>> >
>
>Then don't stomp on mine ;-)
RM: I would hate to think I do that, so yell out if you think it's
occurring.
Bear in mind that it is not stomping on you if you are told we don't
wish to hear your over-the-top rants. Of course you still have the
right to continue after I / we express our opinions unless a moderator
rules otherwise.
>
>H
Ray
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <rOjtb.1428$n56...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "H"
<adb...@zerospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3fb5a...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>>
>> RM: David was not *using* a name on all his posts, so how could he
>> have changed it?
>
>Ray--look in your newsgroup reader and look at the column that says FROM:
>'Boyd Blaire' went to 'Desertphile'
>
>Really--it's not a big deal, why you chose to make it so, after reading my
>post to David is beyond me.
RM: You indicated that David was changing his posting details. I was
merely pointing out that the change was made for a perfectly normal
reason in case anyone thought your comment was implying deceit or
evasion.
>To be honest-- you're as bad as I am. You're
>criticizing me for criticizing someone else ;-)
>
RM: It's one of the more productive things about usenet. For all I
know, someone may come in and point out my errors, and then I / we
learn something new.
>>
>> RM: Yes it's common knowledge around the world, but it is still
>> nevertheless legal and the organisers or the churches should not be
>> ridiculed without a reason.
>
>Again, that is your opinion not a fact, and I say I am entitled to give mine
>which is yeah-- it's pretty darn nutty for someone to call himself a
>"priest" and wish someone dead. So do not imply that someone deserves to be
>treated with the respect of a priest when clearly they speak in a fashion
>that is anything BUT like a priest. Besides Ray, respect is not a given
>right--it's something that is earned.
RM: Of course you have a right (if not a moral duty) to criticise
David for what he said about the U.S. President, but it's not right to
criticise a registered church without evidence.
>
>> >>
RM: My recollection is that after June, 2001 the newspapers were still
running stories about ~anyone~ being a potential target.
>Actually I wish people would start to be fined for filing frivelous
>lawsuits. The only people who make money are the lawyers.
RM: Geez, for a millisecond there I thought you were going to say
""filing frivelous posts".
>
>>
>> RM: This propaganda is looked upon with amusement in the other Western
>> countries. It's *normal* in all civilised countries to have freedom of
>> speech.
>> >
>
>Then don't stomp on mine ;-)
RM: I would hate to think I do that, so yell out if you think it's
Ray Murphy
----------
In article <rOjtb.1428$n56...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "H"
<adb...@zerospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Murphy" <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3fb5a...@news.chariot.net.au...
>>
>>
>> RM: David was not *using* a name on all his posts, so how could he
>> have changed it?
>
>Ray--look in your newsgroup reader and look at the column that says FROM:
>'Boyd Blaire' went to 'Desertphile'
>
>Really--it's not a big deal, why you chose to make it so, after reading my
>post to David is beyond me.
RM: You indicated that David was changing his posting details. I was
merely pointing out that the change was made for a perfectly normal
reason in case anyone thought your comment was implying deceit or
evasion.
>To be honest-- you're as bad as I am. You're
>criticizing me for criticizing someone else ;-)
>
RM: It's one of the more productive things about usenet. For all I
know, someone may come in and point out my errors, and then I / we
learn something new.
>>
>> RM: Yes it's common knowledge around the world, but it is still
>> nevertheless legal and the organisers or the churches should not be
>> ridiculed without a reason.
>
>Again, that is your opinion not a fact, and I say I am entitled to give mine
>which is yeah-- it's pretty darn nutty for someone to call himself a
>"priest" and wish someone dead. So do not imply that someone deserves to be
>treated with the respect of a priest when clearly they speak in a fashion
>that is anything BUT like a priest. Besides Ray, respect is not a given
>right--it's something that is earned.
RM: Of course you have a right (if not a moral duty) to criticise
David for what he said about the U.S. President, but it's not right to
criticise a registered church without evidence.
>
>> >>
RM: My recollection is that after June, 2001 the newspapers were still
running stories about ~anyone~ being a potential target.
>Actually I wish people would start to be fined for filing frivelous
>lawsuits. The only people who make money are the lawyers.
RM: Geez, for a millisecond there I thought you were going to say
""filing frivelous posts".
>
>>
>> RM: This propaganda is looked upon with amusement in the other Western
>> countries. It's *normal* in all civilised countries to have freedom of
>> speech.
>> >
>
>Then don't stomp on mine ;-)
RM: I would hate to think I do that, so yell out if you think it's
Edmond Wollmann
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:04:53 CST, "Pedantus"
> <rlsatterlee[delete_this]@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3FB275...@earthlink.net...
> > > Is a critical point that will be retraced. I am predicting his undoing
> > > (especially his ratings) when it returns. Anyone following his chart?
> > > Comments?, suggestions?, disagreements?... welcome.
> That's no surprise---- national polls show him unpopular and on the
> way "out." All that remains now is him impeachment and prison cell.
It must be great to be so confident about the future.
> His death would be a welcome event.
He needn't die to have his influence and bad judgment stopped--all
that is needed is voting and responsibility by those who own the
government--the people.
> > Well, wouldn't be a lot easier to either agree or disagree based on
> > specific details of the events foreshadowed , using the exact dates of those
> > events...like the undoing of shoelaces by Sun aspect (x) Planet (y) from
> > mid-pisces..whatever?
There are no "specific details of events forshadowed" because each
individual, and the collective at large creates their reality based on
their beliefs at any given moment. Therefore, although we can gauge
the momentum of beliefs without astrology, astrology gives us some
insight into the strength and direction of those beliefs. But, even
so, ANYone can alter the direction of any momentum by recognition of
the energy and perspective that created the momentum to begin with.
Even George Bush can extract himself and the populace from the
insistence that he has the "right" beliefs, and end the cycle of
violence.
The charts I noted are critical points of development of the momentum
in question.
> The silly thing about "Edmond Wollmann" making such a "prediction" is
> that he made it *AFTER* the rest of the industrial world has already
> said the same thing.
Not true, I predicted the whole of the events, perhaps not in precise
detail, but the whole of the events that were to come on the night of
his election win and the eclipse that immediately proceeded it. These
predictions are archived in Google for all to see, and listed on my
website. I predicted the general conflict of the "poor VS rich" war
that has come to pass, based on the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction in
Taurus in 2000.
"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
- Yogi Berra
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
H
"Edmond Wollmann" <Azim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>I predicted the general conflict of the "poor VS rich" war
> that has come to pass, based on the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction in
> Taurus in 2000.
The conflict between the poor and the rich was going on long before you were
even born. It is nothing new Ed.
H
Edmond Wollmann
From: "Edmond Wollmann" <E...@astroconsulting.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.astrology.metapsych,alt.paranormal,talk.religion.newage,alt.consciousness
Subject: The Christmas Eclipse of 2000 and Conscious Commandment
Message-ID: <Se616.24291$c32.5...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 18:34:26 GMT
Our current president elect lost the election, not only in terms of
vote count, but in effectiveness, the ability to wield power, the
ability to promote agenda, and in the confidence (which he will
destroy further) of the people. But this is necessary and positive for
taking back power. The eclipse squares George W. Bush's Neptune in
house 3 from house 5 reinforcing the above mentioned issues,
especially foreign, which are NOT LIKE they were when his father used
old beliefs to stir the American populace to punish children in Iraq
as a propaganda ploy to unite us in a mission. We are becoming one
world united, and this cannot be stopped. This president will learn
through this co-created (by both the populace and him) powerless
position, that changing one's own beliefs and unifying and DEVELOPING
one's beliefs is far more powerful than trying to force one's own on
others--be it country or person. His Sun/Moon fall on the US' own
defensive and insecure Sun/Saturn square. All of our fears as a nation
will now be unflatteringly played out--which is another necessary
element (along with the Clinton scandal) to destructurize the
delusional beliefs the populace holds that these people who serve are
somehow "better" than those they serve. This president is the symbol
of my prediction of the momentum of the collectivity to take back
power from the government in ways I have previously outlined (the
first on television in 1991) the first issue being:
A) The evidence that every SINGLE person makes a difference in the
creation of the world belief and world reality as evidenced in the
vote counting.
B) That when we give power to governmental institutions to take
responsibility for things we are unwilling to, they may USURP power
and take responsibility (or control of) things we may NOT want them to
(Orion negativity).
These two issues will be the indicator of the beginning of the end of
the US governmental structure (tactics) as we have known it, and a
true republic will emerge. By 2012, the changes I have discussed will
bring a dramatic paradigm shift of consciousness regarding our
Galactic membership--the level of which--shall be determined by the
integration of the necessary events from now until then.