Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2019, 06:46 PM - Edit history (2)
I read a horoscope daily but still just keep generalities in mind, mostly from the hearsay from the '70s, when the by-word was to ask everybody, "What's your sign?" I say I don't believe, but superstitiously would case the signs of bosses and co-workers and whomever for both predictive and post mortem "explanations".
It was the post-Hippie '70s - the alternative spirituality (Eastern things, Jesus Freaks, Carlos CASTANEDA, Scientology, pop psych) and the horoscope/tarot. As I recall, Pisces was not one of the popular signs; besides the intuitive/psychic side, we were called "MOODY". Quite a few times expectant faces dropped down to *crestfallen* upon hearing my answer, "Pisces," accompanied by their very disappointed, "Oh."
One of the tags was that every sign has its positive and negative sides, that for every golden fish there was a barracuda.
In your quoted profile, I don't know about the "friendly" thing so much because I feel it's more an issue of being introverted, but *do* think we're "tolerant" in the sense of willingness to be all out-there to try or at least listen to different people. I don't know about not being judgmental.
The handful of signs I have pre-conceived notions about (people I have known) are: * Cancer* - supposed to be our Pisces caretaker. *Libra* - brilliant, top of the line, roses and diamonds, also piercing everybody's weak spot. *Aries*- charismatic, but also playing to the gallery, not committing. *Aquarius* - charming but edgy. *Taurus* - stalwart but stubborn.
Our Late Pisceans are supposed to be more of the good stuff, no?
= new reply since forum marked as read
