FemmeScorpion
@FemmeScorpion
15 Years500+ Posts
Comments: 0 · Posts: 997 · Topics: 84
Its official libras & scorps dont work
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Neighbors are often not compatible... my Pisces with Aqua.. maybe, since I have Aqua influence.. but an Aries?! o.o Taurus with a Gemini? Cap with an Aqua? Cancer with a Leo?! Not saying those are impossible matches by any means.. just that they're much more difficult, esp without a lot of other complimentary chart placements.
Truth is, Waters (esp Scorps) usually struggle to match with anything BUT Waters... we're so deep and emotional, so FEELING.. moreso than the others. Add the Scorp tendency for jealousy, manipulation, and obsessive thoughts... that stuff will drive a Libra or Sag or Virgo (etc) banana cream pie.. but another WATER might understand and accept it. I say the biggest struggle w/ Scorp-Libra is emotion vs. thinking and esp the flirty Libra risking decapitation by jealous Scorpio! LOL
For a Pisces, I don't have much Water in me, so I'm probably not very typical. My heavy Earth, Air, and Fire placements all outnumber my piddly little 4 Pisces planets (and NO other Water anywhere)... It makes me get along great with Scorps, but crash and burn with most Cancers. It makes mutual attraction for my polar opposite (Virgo) but NOT the Caps that are supposed to be compatible with me. It makes me airy enough (and juuuuuust detached enough) to deal with Libras and Aquas and Gems. But even though I have 4 Aries placements (and two more Fires) I cannot usually mesh well with Fires, certainly not romantically. Leos are just a big no no. Sags are great for friendship with me, but usually the women. I have both Aries and Leo sons... the Aries son has key Pisces planets, and we mesh much better than my Leo son and I... he loves his Momma.. but I can already see that true mutual understanding of each others' way of doing things is not going to be likely. He's like ALL Fire, and whoa!
Also, my Libra is my THIRD attempt at a serious relationship with a Libra over the years. First two had some compatibility and major attraction.. but in the end, not nearly enough. My Libra's placements compliment mine WAY more than a typical Libra's do. I think my Libra may be a Virgo in disguise, all his Earth lol
Truth is, Waters (esp Scorps) usually struggle to match with anything BUT Waters... we're so deep and emotional, so FEELING.. moreso than the others. Add the Scorp tendency for jealousy, manipulation, and obsessive thoughts... that stuff will drive a Libra or Sag or Virgo (etc) banana cream pie.. but another WATER might understand and accept it. I say the biggest struggle w/ Scorp-Libra is emotion vs. thinking and esp the flirty Libra risking decapitation by jealous Scorpio! LOL
For a Pisces, I don't have much Water in me, so I'm probably not very typical. My heavy Earth, Air, and Fire placements all outnumber my piddly little 4 Pisces planets (and NO other Water anywhere)... It makes me get along great with Scorps, but crash and burn with most Cancers. It makes mutual attraction for my polar opposite (Virgo) but NOT the Caps that are supposed to be compatible with me. It makes me airy enough (and juuuuuust detached enough) to deal with Libras and Aquas and Gems. But even though I have 4 Aries placements (and two more Fires) I cannot usually mesh well with Fires, certainly not romantically. Leos are just a big no no. Sags are great for friendship with me, but usually the women. I have both Aries and Leo sons... the Aries son has key Pisces planets, and we mesh much better than my Leo son and I... he loves his Momma.. but I can already see that true mutual understanding of each others' way of doing things is not going to be likely. He's like ALL Fire, and whoa!
Also, my Libra is my THIRD attempt at a serious relationship with a Libra over the years. First two had some compatibility and major attraction.. but in the end, not nearly enough. My Libra's placements compliment mine WAY more than a typical Libra's do. I think my Libra may be a Virgo in disguise, all his Earth lol
@nefer
I am quite alike you...
Besides my four planets in Scorp everything else is earth and fire, and one or two planets in air.
Hummm...my rising is in leo and my moon in sag...other than that i have a few more fire signs!!
I am quite alike you...
Besides my four planets in Scorp everything else is earth and fire, and one or two planets in air.
Hummm...my rising is in leo and my moon in sag...other than that i have a few more fire signs!!
Posted by FemmeScorpion
Am not going to dwell on this but from my own experience and from what others have said.
Its obvious these two struggle to find any common ground. Those who are brave enough to attempt i applaud you but it seems too much hardwork even for a headstrong scorp.
Libra sit nextdoor to scorp in the zodiac,so why cant they have a great union?. Neighbours should be good mates/friends.
However not with these 2.
I think scorps can be good friends with libras, but they must not see each other very often or for too long.
Scorpio/ Libra is the supportive aspect; there probably is no better friend to libra than scorp in terms of loyalty and support emotionally, the same way aqua is a good friend mentally.
regarding my previous post, I do take that back. See how long it took - 5 hrs?
for good libra unions, there must be water present (the scorpio water is good for binding), a bit of fire (not too much or else combustion will take place), alot of earth (important for volatile air), and best of all, more libra esp in persoal planets.
I respectfully disagree.
That is, I am of the persuasion that, astrologically, no zodiac sign plays any logical (i.e., necessary) role in dictating (i.e., determining) any phenomenon (e.g., relationship) between any two individuals. Rather, every zodiac sign, I contend, merely points to, or names, the (seemingly) 'statistical truths' that are associated with, or describe, persons born within certain (formerly alleged but not actual) equally divided zones (i.e., zodiacs) on the ecliptic. (They are actually 13 zodiacs, including Ophiuchus.)
Thus, metaphysically, to argue that astrology dictates (i.e., determines) a person's life is equivalent to arguing that a statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth to only monkeys) dictates (i.e., determines) the thing it describes (e.g., monkeys giving birth only to monkeys). In other words, the statistically true description does NOT cause the fact that most monkeys give birth to only monkeys. Arguing as such is logical nonsense; for the semantic truth-making relationship is in the reverse order. Most monkeys (actually) giving birth to only monkeys causes the statistical descriptionn that'most monkeys give birth to only monkeys' to be true.
That is, that which dictates (i.e., determines) a certain statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth only to monkeys) is the fact that the actual world is as such that most of the time, this certain true description is the case (e.g., that the majority of monkeys birth only monkeys). Similarly, that which dictates (i.e., determines) astrology is the fact that persons who live in the actual world can be statistically divided into several groups differing mostly by behaviors within a certain periods of time, corresponding to the apparent path of the Sun across the sky over the course of the year (i.e., the zodiacs).
Now I may have been doing to much philosophy in my above reasoning but what is my ultimate point? It is this: that, simply, human beings dictate relationships - not astrology. Rather, astrology merely gives 'statistically true descriptions' or insights on how a certain group of folks born within a certain time frame 'tend' to behave.
That is, I am of the persuasion that, astrologically, no zodiac sign plays any logical (i.e., necessary) role in dictating (i.e., determining) any phenomenon (e.g., relationship) between any two individuals. Rather, every zodiac sign, I contend, merely points to, or names, the (seemingly) 'statistical truths' that are associated with, or describe, persons born within certain (formerly alleged but not actual) equally divided zones (i.e., zodiacs) on the ecliptic. (They are actually 13 zodiacs, including Ophiuchus.)
Thus, metaphysically, to argue that astrology dictates (i.e., determines) a person's life is equivalent to arguing that a statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth to only monkeys) dictates (i.e., determines) the thing it describes (e.g., monkeys giving birth only to monkeys). In other words, the statistically true description does NOT cause the fact that most monkeys give birth to only monkeys. Arguing as such is logical nonsense; for the semantic truth-making relationship is in the reverse order. Most monkeys (actually) giving birth to only monkeys causes the statistical descriptionn that'most monkeys give birth to only monkeys' to be true.
That is, that which dictates (i.e., determines) a certain statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth only to monkeys) is the fact that the actual world is as such that most of the time, this certain true description is the case (e.g., that the majority of monkeys birth only monkeys). Similarly, that which dictates (i.e., determines) astrology is the fact that persons who live in the actual world can be statistically divided into several groups differing mostly by behaviors within a certain periods of time, corresponding to the apparent path of the Sun across the sky over the course of the year (i.e., the zodiacs).
Now I may have been doing to much philosophy in my above reasoning but what is my ultimate point? It is this: that, simply, human beings dictate relationships - not astrology. Rather, astrology merely gives 'statistically true descriptions' or insights on how a certain group of folks born within a certain time frame 'tend' to behave.
^you cant use statistical/scientific knowledge to explain astrology.. you're just missing the point if you do.
Astrology = art. You cant look at paintings/ symbolisms and start statistical analyses.
Astrology is illogical, and its language is an art. You're very tellingly an astrological novice.
Astrology = art. You cant look at paintings/ symbolisms and start statistical analyses.
Astrology is illogical, and its language is an art. You're very tellingly an astrological novice.
anytime one person, regardless of their sign, plays games and won't be open about liking the libra (especially if they are in a relationship already and say that they're just toying with the libra for fun), it won't work out.
no matter how stubborn and strong you think you are, you can't overpower the libra without making them feel like they matter to you. libras like what is easy. if you want to overpower them, you wrap them around your finger first. then you overpower them. duh.
many libras have told you that libras don't like games.
and this is the reason libra and scorp can't work. libra hates games and scorpio will play all the games they have to in order to not make themselves vulnerable, even though vulnerability is just about the most powerful libraphrodesiac (do you like this word?) there is. other neighbors can work out. it depends what their strengths and weaknesses are. with libra and scorpio, the compatibility is scant. (i've seen it happen, but i've never seen it last)
ewashington...if you don't believe in astrology, don't post. most people in general don't believe in astrology. everyone who does is aware that most people don't believe. we know that we're in the minority. we've heard all the arguments. so go find some skepticism message board and post among people who agree with you. thanks.
no matter how stubborn and strong you think you are, you can't overpower the libra without making them feel like they matter to you. libras like what is easy. if you want to overpower them, you wrap them around your finger first. then you overpower them. duh.
many libras have told you that libras don't like games.
and this is the reason libra and scorp can't work. libra hates games and scorpio will play all the games they have to in order to not make themselves vulnerable, even though vulnerability is just about the most powerful libraphrodesiac (do you like this word?) there is. other neighbors can work out. it depends what their strengths and weaknesses are. with libra and scorpio, the compatibility is scant. (i've seen it happen, but i've never seen it last)
ewashington...if you don't believe in astrology, don't post. most people in general don't believe in astrology. everyone who does is aware that most people don't believe. we know that we're in the minority. we've heard all the arguments. so go find some skepticism message board and post among people who agree with you. thanks.
Seriously, I respectfully need to query the validity of your statement, especially this one:
"That is, that which dictates (i.e., determines) a certain statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth only to monkeys) is the fact that the actual world is as such that most of the time, this certain true description is the case (e.g., that the majority of monkeys birth only monkeys). Similarly, that which dictates (i.e., determines) astrology is the fact that persons who live in the actual world can be statistically divided into several groups differing mostly by behaviors within a certain periods of time, corresponding to the apparent path of the Sun across the sky over the course of the year (i.e., the zodiacs). "
I understand you're scientific minded, but what do you mean by dictates (ie determines)? Is the word in the bracket absolutely necessary? You have not only confused the reader (i.e.: me), I think you have confused the writer (i.e.: you). First, you didn't tie up your story of monkeys (i.e: experiments) properly into how the sun flashes across the sky in a streak of lightning (i.e.: astrology).
I take the notion that you, follow this theory: "If you can't win, confuse".
Your statement (ie: paragraph) here makes as much sense as monkeys flying to ophiuchus in a spaceship (i.e.: redundant).
So, again, respectfully, at least learn 1 chapter of astrology before you act like you know what you're talking about, (which obviously you're trying to smoke with useless jargon that are not well placed, nor incite any meaning).
Thanks (i.e: goodbye).
"That is, that which dictates (i.e., determines) a certain statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth only to monkeys) is the fact that the actual world is as such that most of the time, this certain true description is the case (e.g., that the majority of monkeys birth only monkeys). Similarly, that which dictates (i.e., determines) astrology is the fact that persons who live in the actual world can be statistically divided into several groups differing mostly by behaviors within a certain periods of time, corresponding to the apparent path of the Sun across the sky over the course of the year (i.e., the zodiacs). "
I understand you're scientific minded, but what do you mean by dictates (ie determines)? Is the word in the bracket absolutely necessary? You have not only confused the reader (i.e.: me), I think you have confused the writer (i.e.: you). First, you didn't tie up your story of monkeys (i.e: experiments) properly into how the sun flashes across the sky in a streak of lightning (i.e.: astrology).
I take the notion that you, follow this theory: "If you can't win, confuse".
Your statement (ie: paragraph) here makes as much sense as monkeys flying to ophiuchus in a spaceship (i.e.: redundant).
So, again, respectfully, at least learn 1 chapter of astrology before you act like you know what you're talking about, (which obviously you're trying to smoke with useless jargon that are not well placed, nor incite any meaning).
Thanks (i.e: goodbye).
@ Spica
You seem to misunderstand my remarks. I have argued that in the measure that astrology is actually accurate, astrology consists of nothing more than statistical truths (or true descriptions) that are grouped into several divisions (i.e., the zodiac). The zodiac, in astronomy (i.e., the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole), is the ring of constellations that lines the ecliptic. This same 'ecliptic,' in essence, is a large circle on the celestial sphere representing the sun's apparent path during the year, of which the zodiac borders. Thus, the zodiac signs are merely the NAME (= SIGNS) of the divisions that borders this same large circle on the celestial sphere representing the sun's apparent path during the year. Historically, this is all scientific fact.
Now, astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world. Thus, astrology IS based on astronomy (i.e., in short, the movements and relatives positions of celestial bodies), which IS statistical/scientific knowledge. Thus, I seem to be failing at seeing how I 'cant use statistical/scientific knowledge to explain astrology.' Is this not, by definition, what statistically 'accurate' astrology is?
Therefore, statistical/scientific knowledge does very much explain astrology. Yet, ironically, contrary to your position, that which astrologers actually do is look at 'painting/symbolisms' (e.g., zodiac SIGNS) and start (i.e., give) statistical analyses. As I have argued, it ought to be the other way around, as to maintain the same order is to do bad metaphysics.
Ultimately, that which is seemingly 'illogical' about modern-day astrology is its bad metaphysics. Consequently, modern-day astrology's 'language' tends to express an incoherent art form, since 'its language is an art.' Moreover, regarding myself allegedly being 'very tellingly an astrological novice,' in the measure that modern-day astrology subscribes to bad metaphysics, I do not subscribe to modern-day astrology. If this qualifies me as 'very tellingly an astrological novice,' so be it; for I much rather be 'very tellingly an astrological novice' than a bad metaphysician.
You seem to misunderstand my remarks. I have argued that in the measure that astrology is actually accurate, astrology consists of nothing more than statistical truths (or true descriptions) that are grouped into several divisions (i.e., the zodiac). The zodiac, in astronomy (i.e., the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole), is the ring of constellations that lines the ecliptic. This same 'ecliptic,' in essence, is a large circle on the celestial sphere representing the sun's apparent path during the year, of which the zodiac borders. Thus, the zodiac signs are merely the NAME (= SIGNS) of the divisions that borders this same large circle on the celestial sphere representing the sun's apparent path during the year. Historically, this is all scientific fact.
Now, astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world. Thus, astrology IS based on astronomy (i.e., in short, the movements and relatives positions of celestial bodies), which IS statistical/scientific knowledge. Thus, I seem to be failing at seeing how I 'cant use statistical/scientific knowledge to explain astrology.' Is this not, by definition, what statistically 'accurate' astrology is?
Therefore, statistical/scientific knowledge does very much explain astrology. Yet, ironically, contrary to your position, that which astrologers actually do is look at 'painting/symbolisms' (e.g., zodiac SIGNS) and start (i.e., give) statistical analyses. As I have argued, it ought to be the other way around, as to maintain the same order is to do bad metaphysics.
Ultimately, that which is seemingly 'illogical' about modern-day astrology is its bad metaphysics. Consequently, modern-day astrology's 'language' tends to express an incoherent art form, since 'its language is an art.' Moreover, regarding myself allegedly being 'very tellingly an astrological novice,' in the measure that modern-day astrology subscribes to bad metaphysics, I do not subscribe to modern-day astrology. If this qualifies me as 'very tellingly an astrological novice,' so be it; for I much rather be 'very tellingly an astrological novice' than a bad metaphysician.
Thus, metaphysically, to argue that astrology dictates a person's life is equivalent to arguing that a statistically true description dictates the thing it describes . In other words, the statistically true description does NOT cause the fact that most monkeys give birth to only monkeys. Arguing as such is logical nonsense; for the semantic truth-making relationship is in the reverse order. Most monkeys giving birth to only monkeys causes the statistical descriptionn that'most monkeys give birth to only monkeys' to be true.
From your paragraph above (I have gotten rid of the parentheses). Can you tell me if you can read & understand it, please?
To successfully argue your case, you must be proficient in the subjects of which you speak. But your understanding is superficial, the way you only see oil and canvas in Dali's painting.
From your paragraph above (I have gotten rid of the parentheses). Can you tell me if you can read & understand it, please?
To successfully argue your case, you must be proficient in the subjects of which you speak. But your understanding is superficial, the way you only see oil and canvas in Dali's painting.
As curious visitor said, maybe you can go into pseudoscientific forums and have other awesome statisicians diss astrology together with you. If it pleases you. To argue about astrology's validity in an astrology forum is irritating to say the least. It's like YOU being in a heterosexual forum (acknowledging you're straight) and having a knw-it-all bisexual coming to disprove your gender.
Posted by spica
Seriously, I respectfully need to query the validity of your statement, especially this one:
"That is, that which dictates (i.e., determines) a certain statistically true description (e.g., most monkeys give birth only to monkeys) is the fact that the actual world is as such that most of the time, this certain true description is the case (e.g., that the majority of monkeys birth only monkeys). Similarly, that which dictates (i.e., determines) astrology is the fact that persons who live in the actual world can be statistically divided into several groups differing mostly by behaviors within a certain periods of time, corresponding to the apparent path of the Sun across the sky over the course of the year (i.e., the zodiacs). "
I understand you're scientific minded, but what do you mean by dictates (ie determines)? Is the word in the bracket absolutely necessary? You have not only confused the reader (i.e.: me), I think you have confused the writer (i.e.: you). First, you didn't tie up your story of monkeys (i.e: experiments) properly into how the sun flashes across the sky in a streak of lightning (i.e.: astrology).
I take the notion that you, follow this theory: "If you can't win, confuse".
Your statement (ie: paragraph) here makes as much sense as monkeys flying to ophiuchus in a spaceship (i.e.: redundant).
So, again, respectfully, at least learn 1 chapter of astrology before you act like you know what you're talking about, (which obviously you're trying to smoke with useless jargon that are not well placed, nor incite any meaning).
Thanks (i.e: goodbye).
First, in logic, arguments can only be valid, invalid, or non-valid - not statements; but I will try to further clarify my argument for you.
Concepts involved with language are often likened to intellectual cutting 'tools,' piercing through the soul or mind; but if our intellectual tools are dull, our concepts will be dull as well, causing much unnecessary confusion. Thus, we need to sharpen our concept (i.e., intellectual cutting tools) regularly. One way of sharpening our concepts is through clarification through reasoning.
Indeed, the words within the quotation marks are not absolute (i.e., logically) necessary, but have only been practically used to clarify the meaning of the word within the quotation (e.g., 'dictates') as you clearly do NOT seem to understand. You clearly evidenc
This is an astrology forum. not a language one. Don't use language to shroud your arguments. They only expose your scanty astrological knowledge.
Ps: astronomy and astrology are not the same thing.
Ps: astronomy and astrology are not the same thing.
Posted by curious visitor
anytime one person, regardless of their sign, plays games and won't be open about liking the libra (especially if they are in a relationship already and say that they're just toying with the libra for fun), it won't work out.
no matter how stubborn and strong you think you are, you can't overpower the libra without making them feel like they matter to you. libras like what is easy. if you want to overpower them, you wrap them around your finger first. then you overpower them. duh.
many libras have told you that libras don't like games.
and this is the reason libra and scorp can't work. libra hates games and scorpio will play all the games they have to in order to not make themselves vulnerable, even though vulnerability is just about the most powerful libraphrodesiac (do you like this word?) there is. other neighbors can work out. it depends what their strengths and weaknesses are. with libra and scorpio, the compatibility is scant. (i've seen it happen, but i've never seen it last)
ewashington...if you don't believe in astrology, don't post. most people in general don't believe in astrology. everyone who does is aware that most people don't believe. we know that we're in the minority. we've heard all the arguments. so go find some skepticism message board and post among people who agree with you. thanks.
Excellent point. Just one small problem. From what are you logically inferring that I don't believe in astrology?
I have only argued that the metaphysics that informs your astrology is confused (i.e., bad); for it reverses the relationship between truth semantics (i.e., truth and its descriptions.)
Plus, skepticism?! With some of the comments that I have read on this board, I argue that some of you faithful adherents to modern-day astrology probably possess more 'skepticism' about your very own astrological beliefs than actual skeptics do of astrology!
In short, nevertheless, what I aim to point out is that astrology is actually based off of the science of astronomy. The zodiac is an actual belt of constellations the appears to border the apparent course of the Sun across the year. Having said this, influencing phenomena may correspond to where or when a human is born (as this statistically seems to be the case), similar to how, gravitationally, lunar tides may correspond to where or when the moon is on its orbit.
Bu
Posted by spica
Thus, metaphysically, to argue that astrology dictates a person's life is equivalent to arguing that a statistically true description dictates the thing it describes . In other words, the statistically true description does NOT cause the fact that most monkeys give birth to only monkeys. Arguing as such is logical nonsense; for the semantic truth-making relationship is in the reverse order. Most monkeys giving birth to only monkeys causes the statistical descriptionn that'most monkeys give birth to only monkeys' to be true.
From your paragraph above (I have gotten rid of the parentheses). Can you tell me if you can read & understand it, please?
To successfully argue your case, you must be proficient in the subjects of which you speak. But your understanding is superficial, the way you only see oil and canvas in Dali's painting.
In metaphysics, arguing that one's life is determined by astrology is equivalent to arguing that the statistically true statement "Most inhabitants of the United States are white" (i.e., a statistically true description) is the thing that determines, or causes, the fact that most inhabitants of the United States are indeed white. (Statement determining the reality) This would make no sense.
Rather, what determines this fact consists of the doings and on-goings of white folks, black folks, and other persons of color and non color alike, that have established such a reality demographically. This analogy aims to point to the fact that human beings determine compatibility and not zodiac signs; and that the meaning of the zodiac sign is being grossly misinterpreted. (It ought to be Reality determining the statement)
(Actually, white folk consists of about 75% of the population of The United States.)
"To successfully argue your case, you must be proficient in the subjects of which you speak. But your understanding is superficial, the way you only see oil and canvas in Dali's painting."
Are you indeed sure that you would like to use this above statement as a logical premises for your argument? I am about to invalidate it.
Consider both the form and content of your statement and its logical analogue"
"To successfully argue your case (in court), you must be proficient in the subject (law) of which you speak."
Now, how many people have there been whom have "successfully argued their case" in court (or any
Posted by spica
As curious visitor said, maybe you can go into pseudoscientific forums and have other awesome statisicians diss astrology together with you. If it pleases you. To argue about astrology's validity in an astrology forum is irritating to say the least. It's like YOU being in a heterosexual forum (acknowledging you're straight) and having a knw-it-all bisexual coming to disprove your gender.
I am not arguing about astrology's validity. Rather, I am arguing about its modern-day interpretive methods tend to be backwards.
Further, within any my posts, you have never seen me refer to astrology as"pseuedoscientific." Such words stems/comes from YOU. (Reaction-formation.) Perhaps, this is how you 'actually' refer to, feel about, astrology. I'm just saying...
By the way, your analogy is horrendously misplaced. By ANALOGY, you would be a heterosexual; and I would be another heterosexual, informing YOU that the way your heterosexuality was interpreted was backwards.
I dont think I can respond to you, basically because your posts have been cut off.
And, your implications are inaccurate, by the way.
Carry on..
I believe you were putting across your theory (argument, validation, etc etc) because you disagree with OP (FemmeScorp's) assertion that Scorpio and Libra don't go together.
So, without missing the point of *your* original intention, then, I would say that, yes okay, whatever floats your boat.
If you want to go into the irrelvant details (like the monkeys and astronomy, missing the whole point of astrology's rich symbolisms), then you'd be barking up the wrong tree. And yes, you do sound like a beginning astrology student or someone who just stumbled upon it without understanding the mechanics - you wouldnt bring up points that skirt he issue otherwise.
case closed.
And, your implications are inaccurate, by the way.
Carry on..
I believe you were putting across your theory (argument, validation, etc etc) because you disagree with OP (FemmeScorp's) assertion that Scorpio and Libra don't go together.
So, without missing the point of *your* original intention, then, I would say that, yes okay, whatever floats your boat.
If you want to go into the irrelvant details (like the monkeys and astronomy, missing the whole point of astrology's rich symbolisms), then you'd be barking up the wrong tree. And yes, you do sound like a beginning astrology student or someone who just stumbled upon it without understanding the mechanics - you wouldnt bring up points that skirt he issue otherwise.
case closed.
Posted by ewashington7000
Excellent point. Just one small problem. From what are you logically inferring that I don't believe in astrology?
I have only argued that the metaphysics that informs your astrology is confused (i.e., bad); for it reverses the relationship between truth semantics (i.e., truth and its descriptions.)
Plus, skepticism?! With some of the comments that I have read on this board, I argue that some of you faithful adherents to modern-day astrology probably possess more 'skepticism' about your very own astrological beliefs than actual skeptics do of astrology!
In short, nevertheless, what I aim to point out is that astrology is actually based off of the science of astronomy. The zodiac is an actual belt of constellations the appears to border the apparent course of the Sun across the year. Having said this, influencing phenomena may correspond to where or when a human is born (as this statistically seems to be the case), similar to how, gravitationally, lunar tides may correspond to where or when the moon is on its orbit.
i think you got cut off.
1. i don't care if you do or don't believe in astrology. i think you're on an astrology forum (not only an astrology forum, but one dedicated to one of 12 astrological signs) arguing the validity of astrology. whether it's true or not doesn't matter. the internet is filled with message boards on all sorts of subjects. people tend to find message boards and forums that are relevant to their interests.
if you logically want to debate logically over whether astrology is logically valid, start a topic of your own about that. don't hijack one that already exists. that's troll behavior. it's simple netiquette.
and actually, once upon a time, astronomy and astrology were basically the same thing. thousands and thousands of years ago, court astrologers were gathering when a royal consort went into labor so they could predict what sort of life their next ruler would have. great generals kept astrologers to tell them if it was an auspicious time to attack.
i believe in astrology, but that whole gravitational influence thing is bunk. i'm not sure if you were going that way with your overly academic rhetoric, but if you are, i agree with you.
i used to know this then-law student who could argue just about anything. he used logic very well. it didn't make him right. it just meant that other people
Some ppl just love arguments,not every post warrant a fight. Have been on various other forums and you post a topic-everyone discusses it. Not around here thou.
Libras may not like games,but that doesnt mean they dont play it. I think they get bored more easily because they like things to be easy,far too laid back to put up a fight.
Am amazed how little some of you know about me and the libra,yet one is so eager to pass judgement.
From my experience with libra male-they see you, want you,pursue non stop,do their best to charm the pants off you.
Mmmm this guy wont give up,he's handsome too,girl start liking libra. Libra likes that, he up his antics some more,giving her special treatment,confiding in her,introducing her to his family and friends.
All is good they laugh,make time for each other,he tells her how happy he feels when she shows up,she tells him he makes her smile.
Its obvious to both now that they like/have feelings for each other.People around them notices and start commenting on their chemistry.
I could go on and on. However the main issues i find are, libra gets very hot for the scorpio at the beginning. Scorp take his/ her time to warm to the libra. Then scorp start falling,libra loves freedom-like to have his space to charm. Scorps hate this,scorps are known to be possesive and jealous. So scorp start to use emotions on libra,libra still like scorp but even emotions will not stop his flirting. Then silly games begins. Scorps will try to get the libra jealous-from my experience libra falls for it. Mainly because libra loves attention and a sexy scorp removing that attention his a no no.
Then libra ignore scorp(from what i learnt this is class as going cold)scorps hate this,start giving libra attention. Libra is happy again,they both back on good terms.
The problem is, this becomes a cycle,has both knows what annoys the other. Then it becomes boring,mainly to the libra. Scorps will never get bored of using emotional blackmail/games,its part of our DNA.
Scorps up the games,libra becomes puzzled how can such a sweet caring person say/do these things.
Libra hates that the scorp makes him bewildered and at times angry. He seeks balance,to gain back his composer he needs time to think readjust. Libra can only do what he knows best,he goes cold,minimal to no contact.
Scorps hate this,why his he been like this? Scorps try harder to get the libra to open up. But it pushes libra further away. Scorps get angry and will seek revenge.
Thi
Libras may not like games,but that doesnt mean they dont play it. I think they get bored more easily because they like things to be easy,far too laid back to put up a fight.
Am amazed how little some of you know about me and the libra,yet one is so eager to pass judgement.
From my experience with libra male-they see you, want you,pursue non stop,do their best to charm the pants off you.
Mmmm this guy wont give up,he's handsome too,girl start liking libra. Libra likes that, he up his antics some more,giving her special treatment,confiding in her,introducing her to his family and friends.
All is good they laugh,make time for each other,he tells her how happy he feels when she shows up,she tells him he makes her smile.
Its obvious to both now that they like/have feelings for each other.People around them notices and start commenting on their chemistry.
I could go on and on. However the main issues i find are, libra gets very hot for the scorpio at the beginning. Scorp take his/ her time to warm to the libra. Then scorp start falling,libra loves freedom-like to have his space to charm. Scorps hate this,scorps are known to be possesive and jealous. So scorp start to use emotions on libra,libra still like scorp but even emotions will not stop his flirting. Then silly games begins. Scorps will try to get the libra jealous-from my experience libra falls for it. Mainly because libra loves attention and a sexy scorp removing that attention his a no no.
Then libra ignore scorp(from what i learnt this is class as going cold)scorps hate this,start giving libra attention. Libra is happy again,they both back on good terms.
The problem is, this becomes a cycle,has both knows what annoys the other. Then it becomes boring,mainly to the libra. Scorps will never get bored of using emotional blackmail/games,its part of our DNA.
Scorps up the games,libra becomes puzzled how can such a sweet caring person say/do these things.
Libra hates that the scorp makes him bewildered and at times angry. He seeks balance,to gain back his composer he needs time to think readjust. Libra can only do what he knows best,he goes cold,minimal to no contact.
Scorps hate this,why his he been like this? Scorps try harder to get the libra to open up. But it pushes libra further away. Scorps get angry and will seek revenge.
Thi
This is my own version,based on my own experience. Am sure ppl will give their 2pence worth.
However i am just been honest,and summing up my version of events.
And i can safely say am getting to the stage where i want to be. Closing the lib/scorp chapter.
I will need to be strong thou!! 😢
However i am just been honest,and summing up my version of events.
And i can safely say am getting to the stage where i want to be. Closing the lib/scorp chapter.
I will need to be strong thou!! 😢
Posted by curious visitorPosted by ewashington7000
Excellent point. Just one small problem. From what are you logically inferring that I don't believe in astrology?
I have only argued that the metaphysics that informs your astrology is confused (i.e., bad); for it reverses the relationship between truth semantics (i.e., truth and its descriptions.)
Plus, skepticism?! With some of the comments that I have read on this board, I argue that some of you faithful adherents to modern-day astrology probably possess more 'skepticism' about your very own astrological beliefs than actual skeptics do of astrology!
In short, nevertheless, what I aim to point out is that astrology is actually based off of the science of astronomy. The zodiac is an actual belt of constellations the appears to border the apparent course of the Sun across the year. Having said this, influencing phenomena may correspond to where or when a human is born (as this statistically seems to be the case), similar to how, gravitationally, lunar tides may correspond to where or when the moon is on its orbit.click to expand
i think you got cut off.
1. i don't care if you do or don't believe in astrology. i think you're on an astrology forum (not only an astrology forum, but one dedicated to one of 12 astrological signs) arguing the validity of astrology. whether it's true or not doesn't matter. the internet is filled with message boards on all sorts of subjects. people tend to find message boards and forums that are relevant to their interests.
if you logically want to debate logically over whether astrology is logically valid, start a topic of your own about that. don't hijack one that already exists. that's troll behavior. it's simple netiquette.
and actually, once upon a time, astronomy and astrology were basically the same thing. thousands and thousands of years ago, court astrologers were gathering when a royal consort went into labor so they could predict what sort of life their next ruler would have. great generals kept astrologers to tell them if it was an auspicious time to attack.
i believe in astrology, but that whole gravitational influence thing is bunk. i'm not sure if you were going that way with your overly academic rhetoric, but if you are, i agree with you.
i used to know this then-law student who could argue just abo
Posted by FemmeScorpion
Some ppl just love arguments,not every post warrant a fight. Have been on various other forums and you post a topic-everyone discusses it. Not around here thou.
Libras may not like games,but that doesnt mean they dont play it. I think they get bored more easily because they like things to be easy,far too laid back to put up a fight.
Am amazed how little some of you know about me and the libra,yet one is so eager to pass judgement.
From my experience with libra male-they see you, want you,pursue non stop,do their best to charm the pants off you.
Mmmm this guy wont give up,he's handsome too,girl start liking libra. Libra likes that, he up his antics some more,giving her special treatment,confiding in her,introducing her to his family and friends.
All is good they laugh,make time for each other,he tells her how happy he feels when she shows up,she tells him he makes her smile.
Its obvious to both now that they like/have feelings for each other.People around them notices and start commenting on their chemistry.
I could go on and on. However the main issues i find are, libra gets very hot for the scorpio at the beginning. Scorp take his/ her time to warm to the libra. Then scorp start falling,libra loves freedom-like to have his space to charm. Scorps hate this,scorps are known to be possesive and jealous. So scorp start to use emotions on libra,libra still like scorp but even emotions will not stop his flirting. Then silly games begins. Scorps will try to get the libra jealous-from my experience libra falls for it. Mainly because libra loves attention and a sexy scorp removing that attention his a no no.
Then libra ignore scorp(from what i learnt this is class as going cold)scorps hate this,start giving libra attention. Libra is happy again,they both back on good terms.
The problem is, this becomes a cycle,has both knows what annoys the other. Then it becomes boring,mainly to the libra. Scorps will never get bored of using emotional blackmail/games,its part of our DNA.
Scorps up the games,libra becomes puzzled how can such a sweet caring person say/do these things.
Libra hates that the scorp makes him bewildered and at times angry. He seeks balance,to gain back his composer he needs time to think readjust. Libra can only do what he knows best,he goes cold,minimal to no contact.
Scorps hate this,why his he been like this? Scorps try harder to get the libra
Hello ewashington7000,cant tell if your replying because only what i posted was reposted.
🙂
🙂
Actually I get along great with my Libra. We will be married for 25 years this August! He is a very kind, thoughtful and loving man.
Posted by FemmeScorpion
Hello ewashington7000,cant tell if your replying because only what i posted was reposted.
🙂
i think he's trying to show us his vast logical and intellectual abilities.
and he did so in a way that illustrates them accurately, didn't he?
Posted by raven29
Actually I get along great with my Libra. We will be married for 25 years this August! He is a very kind, thoughtful and loving man.
CONGRATULATIONS,What sign are you??
Posted by curious visitorPosted by FemmeScorpion
Hello ewashington7000,cant tell if your replying because only what i posted was reposted.
🙂
i think he's trying to show us his vast logical and intellectual abilities.
and he did so in a way that illustrates them accurately, didn't he?click to expand
Am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say his internet connection probably playing up.
Afterall libras are about fairness-and we are in the libra forum.lol
Yeah the forum monster has been eating my posts.
Basically, I've replied that your comments are very insightful. Indeed, anybody can add to her or his wisdom merely by reading them. In light of this, as you have said, such comments reflect your own personal experiences. However, as I am sure that you are aware, there are many other experiences, stemming from other folk, that differ favorably from yours, suggesting that the two zodiac signs Libra and Scorpio are indeed compatible. So, then, whose interpretation of 'zodiac compatibility' ought we to follow?
I say that we all ought to learn from all of our experiences, following our hearts, minds, instincts, and intuitions; and not some arbitrarily chosen interpretation of 'zodiac compatibility.'Man and- woman kind alike dictate the meanings of zodiac signs and the other way around.
Basically, I've replied that your comments are very insightful. Indeed, anybody can add to her or his wisdom merely by reading them. In light of this, as you have said, such comments reflect your own personal experiences. However, as I am sure that you are aware, there are many other experiences, stemming from other folk, that differ favorably from yours, suggesting that the two zodiac signs Libra and Scorpio are indeed compatible. So, then, whose interpretation of 'zodiac compatibility' ought we to follow?
I say that we all ought to learn from all of our experiences, following our hearts, minds, instincts, and intuitions; and not some arbitrarily chosen interpretation of 'zodiac compatibility.'Man and- woman kind alike dictate the meanings of zodiac signs and the other way around.
Posted by FemmeScorpionPosted by raven29
Actually I get along great with my Libra. We will be married for 25 years this August! He is a very kind, thoughtful and loving man.
CONGRATULATIONS,What sign are you??click to expand
Scorpio 🙂
OK Amen to that,am not saying one's zodiac sign will determine who they will be happy ever after with.
However it seems libras and scorps just cant work on a romantic level. Too much heartbreak hotel stories on these boards.
If i ever got involved with a libra man again,am sure it would be different,because as you rightly said i learn from my experience.
However it seems libras and scorps just cant work on a romantic level. Too much heartbreak hotel stories on these boards.
If i ever got involved with a libra man again,am sure it would be different,because as you rightly said i learn from my experience.
Raven29, good on you hunny. Really happy for you. Libra men have some nice qualities so am sooo happy a scorp is reaping the rewards.lol
Am sure a few scorp female on here will welcome your good news.🙂
Am sure a few scorp female on here will welcome your good news.🙂
Posted by raven29
Actually I get along great with my Libra. We will be married for 25 years this August! He is a very kind, thoughtful and loving man.
This proves my very point about alleged "zodiac compatibility' exactly. raveen29's marriage reflects, even exemplifies, a beautiful situation between two seemingly incompatible zodiac signs. So, arguably, it's the people, but not the zodiac signs, that dictate the success of two individuals. (Not the other way around)
Nonetheless, I write to merely inspire hope, even through intellectual gymnastics, that those out there whom need some words of encouragement may receive them.
By the way, I am a Libra...lol
Mmmmmm you love debates dont you?
Posted by FemmeScorpion
Mmmmmm you love debates dont you?
Negative. Rather, I love the art of debating, as it tends to both compliment and slake the thirst of my rather satiable intellectual side. But both inner and outer peace for all is my ultimate goal.
Mmmm you dont strike me as a libra. haha
Are you being ironical?
Maybe!
Now that reply 'maybe' represents a statistical truth about Scopios which tends to mean 'yes' in Libran.
She's a scorp!!🙂
Thought thats been established already. scorpio - water libra -air scorpio - needs depth libra - needs mental stimulation.
ewashington7000
First of all: tl;dr
Second of all: You're trying too hard.
First of all: tl;dr
Second of all: You're trying too hard.
Posted by acrossTheGround
ewashington7000
First of all: tl;dr
Second of all: You're trying too hard.
First, I'm sorry: but I don't understand what "tl;dr" means.
Second, I am "trying too hard" to do what exactly?
Posted by ewashington7000Posted by acrossTheGround
ewashington7000
First of all: tl;dr
Second of all: You're trying too hard.
First, I'm sorry: but I don't understand what "tl;dr" means.
Second, I am "trying too hard" to do what exactly?click to expand
tl;dr = too long; didn't read
It's internet speak for when someone writes a book in a forum... we need instant gratification.
Posted by LibraSidPosted by ewashington7000Posted by acrossTheGround
ewashington7000
First of all: tl;dr
Second of all: You're trying too hard.
First, I'm sorry: but I don't understand what "tl;dr" means.
Second, I am "trying too hard" to do what exactly?
tl;dr = too long; didn't read
It's internet speak for when someone writes a book in a forum... we need instant gratification.click to expand
Doesn't the famous adage goes somewhat as such: "Patience comes to those whom wait"?
Instant gratification is not lasting fulfillment. Besides, my 'Libran' nature tends to demand exhaustive analysis to effect optimum fairness in any intellectual pursuit. Otherwise, why even broach a topic of such depth if superficiality is only desired?
Good things come to those who wait.
or
Patience is a virtue.
I have seen people switch it too "Patience comes to those who wait"... but following this idea leads to waiting for ever and receiving nothing but more waiting.
Don't misunderstand instant gratification for a lack of understanding. I too need more than a superficial understanding of something but a key to communicating on forums is expressing points simply and succinctly. Trying to sound smart on the interwebs never works. We cannot see your face or hear your voice. Throwing around big words and hiding your points with parenthesis i.e.'s and e.g.'s will not create a better understanding, it will keep most people from taking the time to understand it at all.
or
Patience is a virtue.
I have seen people switch it too "Patience comes to those who wait"... but following this idea leads to waiting for ever and receiving nothing but more waiting.
Don't misunderstand instant gratification for a lack of understanding. I too need more than a superficial understanding of something but a key to communicating on forums is expressing points simply and succinctly. Trying to sound smart on the interwebs never works. We cannot see your face or hear your voice. Throwing around big words and hiding your points with parenthesis i.e.'s and e.g.'s will not create a better understanding, it will keep most people from taking the time to understand it at all.
Posted by LibraSid
Good things come to those who wait.
or
Patience is a virtue.
I have seen people switch it too "Patience comes to those who wait"... but following this idea leads to waiting for ever and receiving nothing but more waiting.
Don't misunderstand instant gratification for a lack of understanding. I too need more than a superficial understanding of something but a key to communicating on forums is expressing points simply and succinctly. Trying to sound smart on the interwebs never works. We cannot see your face or hear your voice. Throwing around big words and hiding your points with parenthesis i.e.'s and e.g.'s will not create a better understanding, it will keep most people from taking the time to understand it at all.
Why do you suppose that somebody is actually 'throwing around big words,' let alone 'trying to sound smart' on 'interwebs'? Have you ever consider the possibility that some people are actually 'smart' and that these same people may actually use so-called 'big words' merely to properly express themselves?
Perhaps you ought to be, first, more properly considering the fact that some folk are actually rather insecure about not knowing the meaning of certain so-called 'big-words'; and lest these same people admit to this and face public shame, they would rather attack the arguer instead of his or her arguments. (Ad hominem argumentation)
Dictionaries do exist for a reason, even though they merely report common usages of words or terms.
And "hiding points with..."hunh? I won't even address that nonsense.
Besides, expressing points simply and succinctly in a discussion that typically requires complexity and thoroughness at length is like fornicating to obtain chastity: it does NOT make sense.
(By the way, is 'succinctly' considered a so-called 'big word'? You could have used the word 'tersely' or 'concisely' instead? But such wouldn't matter to me, since I actual know what either words means and I have no problem with you using any one of them. Even If I did not know their meanings, I would just seek clarification - not condemn you for using either one of them.) I'm just sayin'....
Please tell me: How do you define a 'big word'?
Posted by LadyLibra12
I completely disagree with this. I think that neighboring signs balance each other out, and I like that about my sign neighbors.
One of my closest friends is a Scorpio and I have had many influential Virgos in my life.
Scorpios and Libras *can* get along. They just have to understand each other, respect each other, work on their weak points *together* instead of fighting against each other, and compromise.
Scorpios can help Libras be more decisive and honest with themselves. Libras can bring some light into Scorpio's life.
I think that it also helps to have other planets that are compatible with each other. For example, if you're a Scorpio but have a lot of air in your chart, and you're with a Libra who has a lot of water in her chart, then that might make things easier for you guys. However, if you have a lot of negative aspects between your two charts, then it might be significantly more difficult to get along.
It's also important to note that there are different 'types' of each sign and that some people born under a sign are more evolved than others born under the same sign. Scorpio, for example, has three symbols: the eagle, the scorpion, and the grey lizard. With Libras, I've noticed a few types as well. For example, I've noticed that some Libras are party types or players whereas others show more of Libra's intellectual side rather than the social side. There are also many Libras that fall somewhere in the middle. Some of those types of Libras and Scorpios go better together than do others.
In the end, I really don't think that any two sun signs absolutely cannot make a decent match: some come more easily than others, but it's not *impossible* to have a successful and happy relationship between any two signs. It's also important to check the rest of the chart as well.
With your penetrating comments, you have just quoted scripture in my Bible verbatim. Thank-you. Amen.
Posted by ewashington7000
Why do you suppose that somebody is actually 'throwing around big words,' let alone 'trying to sound smart' on 'interwebs'? Have you ever consider the possibility that some people are actually 'smart' and that these same people may actually use so-called 'big words' merely to properly express themselves? ....
First, I would like to state that my comments were not meant as an attack on you directly. I commented to explain internet meme (tl;dr). While I did use specific reference to your words it was intended for demonstrative purposes only. Frankly, I don't care what people think of you, or me for that matter. I do understand the comments you made and actually agree with much of it. Especially this:
Posted by ewashington7000
what is my ultimate point? It is this: that, simply, human beings dictate relationshipsclick to expand
I do think that you may discount astrology a little too much. It can be used to gain insight for much more than how an individual tends to behave. For questions about relationships, we can predict problems that are likely to arise due to tendencies each person has. Conversely, some people do put too much weight into it and should learn to just live a little and see what happens.
Ultimately it comes down to the people. Are they mature enough to handle the problems that EVERY relationship will face? Do they want the same things out of a relationship? All kinds of questions can be asked but none of them will prove that my Libra sun says I could never work with a Scorpio lady.
Posted by LibraSidPosted by ewashington7000
Why do you suppose that somebody is actually 'throwing around big words,' let alone 'trying to sound smart' on 'interwebs'? Have you ever consider the possibility that some people are actually 'smart' and that these same people may actually use so-called 'big words' merely to properly express themselves? ....
First, I would like to state that my comments were not meant as an attack on you directly. I commented to explain internet meme (tl;dr). While I did use specific reference to your words it was intended for demonstrative purposes only. Frankly, I don't care what people think of you, or me for that matter. I do understand the comments you made and actually agree with much of it. Especially this:
Posted by ewashington7000
what is my ultimate point? It is this: that, simply, human beings dictate relationships
I do think that you may discount astrology a little too much. It can be used to gain insight for much more than how an individual tends to behave. For questions about relationships, we can predict problems that are likely to arise due to tendencies each person has. Conversely, some people do put too much weight into it and should learn to just live a little and see what happens.
Ultimately it comes down to the people. Are they mature enough to handle the problems that EVERY relationship will face? Do they want the same things out of a relationship? All kinds of questions can be asked but none of them will prove that my Libra sun says I could never work with a Scorpio lady.click to expand
It is not that I discount astrology. Rather, it is that I discount the current metaphysics that informs modern-day astrology. In other words, I take issue with some of the methodologies or ways that modern-day astrology interprets human behavior. In fact, I argue that it ought to be other way around; namely, that human beings (specifically, human behavior) ought to interpret astrology).
Also, in the measure that astrology accurately describes behaviors in human beings statistically, astrology accurately describes statistical truths in human behavior. In this sense, and only in this sense, can astrology accurately predict the LIKELIHOOD of certain human beh
In this sense, and only this sense, can astrology accurately predict the likelihood or probability of certain human behaviors STATISTICALLY.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
When these 2 get together,they can bring each other down.They feel so strongly for each other they want to change the wa
I am a libra male just curious to hear from primarily females on this topic. which ones make better bed rockers?
I have been seeing more couples like this around me lately including one of my good friends who is a libra, so I am wond
...A few questions 1 - Do you guys tend to fall fast in relationships? 2 - Do you guys become jealous/possesive in
Hello! I am somewhat new to the Scorp board but not new to DXP. I just met a Libra man about a month ago and we have bee
I was just wondering if this pair is compatible or is it a bad pairing.
Hey everyone. Ok, so this isn—t the best of situations, I know, but I need to understand some things??first of all, I
Ok, so this isn—t the best of situations, I know, but I need to understand some things??first of all, I am a Scorpio
Hey all, I am new to this site. I recently met a Libra man who is 30 years old. I am Scorp woman who is 27. Ac
Is Libra male and Scorpio female combination just doomed? Any experiences, opinions, positive and/or negative? Is it in
i'm confused if i'm dating a scorp or libra/scorp cusp guy. he's born on october 29th. some say the cusp ends on the 26t
Hi all my first post here.i never beleived in zodiac signs and compatibility until today.i am a libra guy (born oct22
There is this young Libra man who keeps on calling and texting and messaging online. He doesn't take 'NO' for an answer
Scorp's.. what are your experiences with libra's ? ( love and friendship like )
Okay, first of all I have truely fallen for my libra/scorpio. Even though he is a cusp I can see more of the Scorpion co
This will be second go-round with a Scorp male. The first was exhilarating and we are still friends and still love each
I live with a Libra guy. I'm not sure how I got to this place, but I will say that's it's been an eye-opening experienc
OK. For whatever reason, I seem to be attracting a lot of women lately. I went to dinner with a woman who I thought woul
Showdown
Ok... I have met this really cool Scorpio...and he seems to be a bit controlling but in some crazy way I like it XD
Its obvious these two struggle to find any common ground. Those who are brave enough to attempt i applaud you but it seems too much hardwork even for a headstrong scorp.
Libra sit nextdoor to scorp in the zodiac,so why cant they have a great union?. Neighbours should be good mates/friends.
However not with these 2.