leos vs taurus

I heard that there the biggest problem for us in the zodiac....like were the kings of the jungle but the taurus matches our strength(perhap even stronger)
when the these two clash is it a big spectacle— the biggest battle of the zodiac if not who is eg.scorpio vs leo/ taurus vs scorpio

no clue. but im a leo and my taurus sister couldnt beat me in a battle..not a chance. i think leos are stronger..but i'd just like to think that because thats my sign.

buahaha. i am a leo with a taurus moon and scorp venus. that means. basically..i'll kick yo a** busta!

LisforLeo if you are a Leo you cannot have venus in scorpio....did you mean mars in scorpio?

oh btw I have taurus moon myself 🙂but virgo venus

"but they are peace-loving animals anyway."

So said the cow.

What? In general, Taureans crave harmony.

El Greca, I think LisforLeo meant that she has Scorpio rising...I'm not sure, but I looked at her info in her profile and nothing is Scorpio but her rising isn't listed.

LisforLeo, if you do have a Scorp ascendent, that is really weird...we almost have ALL the same placements except for our moons.

oh, btw, I would never, never wanna take on a Taurus. They can be truly brutal when provoked. And more calculating than I think most Leos are capable of.

The sign of Leo is Lion, not a cat. So, a Lion always eat a Bull up.

"PBS, ppl, i love it"

lol

The Taureans win for me.

As for the biggest battle question, I say Leo and Scorpio. It is always fascinating to watch/participate in their interactions.

oh, you are, huh? 😛

yeah, I'm probably confused, to be honest. I thought you were using the whole animals thing to disguise saying that your money would be on a Scorpio.

"What? In general, Taureans crave harmony."

? Was he talking about actual people or about the other signs?

*musses Yama's hair*

He was saying that no other sign can really beat a bull, HOWEVER, in general, Taureans are generally harmonious creatures..I believe.

"leos dont mess with scorpios"

I love messing with Scorpios, under the right circumstances (and sometimes even under the wrong ones).

I like to watch 'em seethe. Is that bad? lol

A bull, on the other hand, isn't nearly as fun.

"He was saying that no other sign can really beat a bull, HOWEVER, in general, Taureans are generally harmonious creatures..I believe."

But he was saying "they", why would he say that instead of "we"?

I dunno, sometimes people do that. I use "they" in reference to Leos all the time despite the fact that I am one.

Besides, he's a Taurus, but he was partly referring to animal bull and he prolly doesn't really consider himself one o' doze.

That's a really weird way of putting it.

No it isn't, you just read it wrong. hehehehe

Now watch he comes back and he's like, "Actually, wheelhomies, what I meant was..."

And then I get too look like an ass, as usual.

Again-"no other sign can really beat a bull, but they are peace-loving animals anyway."

One moment he is speaking about signs, the other moment, he is using plural form, so it looks like he is still talking about other signs, and not Taurus, how can you conclude he is talking about bulls? It makes no sense in the context.

Yama, trust me. 😉

I'm not an English teacher, but if I was, I'm sure I could explain it to you.

"no other sign can really beat a bull, but they [bulls] are peace-loving animals anyway."

Meaning that they don't look for fights. That's the way I interpret it.

Err...How does one make such a fast change from an abstract concepts to animals?

*-an.

I think the bull, in this case, represents not only the animal, but partly Taureans as well. So it's not really a complete change from an abstract concept to animals. (MercInAries, please correct me if I'm wrong...lol.)

"ok, this is interesting."

What can I say, MercInAries? Your words are just so fascinating. They MUST be analyzed. 😉

I think he is enjoying this Leo/Scorpio grammer-off.
Anyway wh, symbolism, as related as it may be to the subject, does not explain such a drastic change.
For example-"A lot of countries don't like the U.S.A because it is red white and blue."

"im not the first to do it."

Yeah, it's more about grammer than the actual concept.

*grammar-off

*grammar

Thanks wh.
Thanks.

But, Yama, the grammar is fine. Because, as you can see:

"no other sign can really beat a bull, but bulls are peace-loving animals anyway."

When bulls is inserted in the plural, which is the original singular subject of the sentence, the meaning of the sentence is clear. Why, then, according to you, is it still incorrect to replace "bulls" with "they", when, essentially, both words refer to the same subject?

No problama, yama.

Let's just chalk it up to your imperfect comprehension of the English language and be done with it. 😉

Because prior to that wh, he was clearly speaking about signs not animals, just because something symbolizes something else it doesn't mean the two things are interchangeable, like the USA->flag example I gave.

Oh, Yama. Let's copy and paste, shall we?

taurus has brute strength, stamina and horns, leos are cats, with claws and teeth.
i think both are evenly matched, it depends on who gets lucky.
no other sign can really beat a bull, but they are peace-loving animals anyway.

The very beginning of the statement includes references to how the signs compare to their corresponding animals. The relation was obvious from the first sentence.

Now, using your example (purely for hypothetical purposes):

The colors of the U.S. flag are closely tied to its attitude of superiority.
I resent this attitude of superiority.
I hate the U.S. because it is red, white, and blue.

Makes more sense now, I believe.

Yes, he is using that as a clear symbol, it is evident since he is mentioning the horns, Leos being cats, etc.
Anyway, why would he change from singular form to plural all of the sudden?

And so, in conclusion, we should marry and have lots of spookily intelligent babies. That's really the only idea that can be drawn from this discussion.

K.

Singular ---> Plural has already been covered.

I'll draw upon my immense reserves of Leonine generosity and copy it for ya:

"But, Yama, the grammar is fine. Because, as you can see:

'no other sign can really beat a bull, but bulls are peace-loving animals anyway.'

When bulls is inserted in the plural, which is the original singular subject of the sentence, the meaning of the sentence is clear. Why, then, according to you, is it still incorrect to replace 'bulls' with 'they', when, essentially, both words refer to the same subject?"

The truth is that you just turn me on.

Sure the babies would be alright, I'm sure, but I don't care as long as I get to sex ya.

I wonder if anyone's gonna come around and accuse us of being......old. *shudders*

We don't need to beat him, can't you see I've already accomplished that? 😉

*pats self on back*

Holy shit, I'm so damn smart I can hardly live with my own damn AWESOMELY BADASS self.

The question is why would he change it from singular to plural? The problem is that he is totally mixing different things if he means what you say he means, astrological signs and animals, symbols and actual things are not interchangeable.

"The colors of the U.S. flag are closely tied to its attitude of superiority.
I resent this attitude of superiority.
I hate the U.S. because it is red, white, and blue."

This example is flawed, because you made a sentence that connects the two, while he didn't.

The first sentence in his post is used as a symbol to symbolize Taurus' strength, it is a tool, why would discuss actual animals, without refering to the thing they symbolize?

Oh, stop. Now you're just being difficult.

"The problem is that he is totally mixing different things if he means what you say he means, astrological signs and animals, symbols and actual things are not interchangeable."

Exactly. He's not interchanging them, because they were so closely tied to begin with.