No, your zodiac sign hasn't changed
January 13th, 2011
10:11 PM ET

No, your zodiac sign hasn't changed

Tattoo parlor owners must be salivating. An assertion in a Minneapolis Star Tribune article that our understanding of the zodiac is off by about a month - and that therefore people have been identifying themselves with the wrong sign - caught fire on the internet Thursday, and many folks are in an absolute panic on social media.

"If my zodiac symbol has been changed to a Libra, what am I supposed to do with my Scorpio tattoo?!?!," read one tweet Thursday.

Some vowed to get their tats removed. Others groaned about losing the sign with which they’ve identified themselves for years. The zodiac and related terms - including Ophiuchus, said to be a 13th and neglected sign - were trending Twitter topics much of Thursday.

But before astrology fans scrape the ink from their arms because they think they're now a Virgo instead of a Libra, they should consider this: If they adhered to the tropical zodiac - which, if they're a Westerner, they probably did - absolutely nothing has changed for them.

That's worth rephrasing: If you considered yourself a Cancer under the tropical zodiac last week, you're still a Cancer under the same zodiac this week.

That's because the tropical zodiac - which is fixed to seasons, and which Western astrology adheres to - differs from the sidereal zodiac - which is fixed to constellations and is followed more in the East, and is the type of zodiac to which the Star Tribune article ultimately refers.

Two zodiacs. That's nothing new.

"This story is born periodically as if someone has discovered some truth. It's not news," said Jeff Jawer, astrologer with

The hubbub started with Sunday's Star Tribune article, which said the following: "The ancient Babylonians based zodiac signs on the constellation the sun was 'in' on the day a person was born. During the ensuing millenniums, the moon’s gravitational pull has made the Earth 'wobble' around its axis, creating about a one-month bump in the stars' alignment."

"When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces, it’s really not in Pisces," Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, told the Star Tribune.

"Indeed," the article continued, "most horoscope readers who consider themselves Pisces are actually Aquarians." The article also asserts Scorpio's window lasts only seven days, and that a 13th constellation, Ophiuchus, used to be counted between Scorpio and Sagittarius but was discarded by the Babylonians because they wanted 12 signs per year.

True enough, Jawer says, the sun doesn't align with constellations at the same time of year that it did millennia ago. But that’s irrelevant for the tropical zodiac, codified for Western astrology by Ptolemy in the second century, he says.

In the tropical zodiac, the start of Aries is fixed to one equinox, and Libra the other.

"When we look at the astrology used in the Western world, the seasonally based astrology has not changed, was never oriented to the constellations, and stands as … has been stated for two millenniums," Jawer said.

People who put stock in astrology can ask whether they should adhere to the tropical zodiac or the sidereal zodiac. Jawer argues for the tropical.

"Astrology is geocentric. It relates life on Earth to the Earth’s environment, and seasons are the most dramatic effect, which is why we use the tropical zodiac," he said.

Post by:
Filed under: Space
soundoff (1,485 Responses)
  1. Philip


    January 13, 2011 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • R4TF1NK


      January 14, 2011 at 12:20 am | Report abuse |
    • David

      And why is this filed under Space? Ugh.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Shannon

      Reply to Stephan Its about as fictional as the bible. Please dnt judge people off what their spiritual beliefs are.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      Stephen....relax buddy. There is a whole website. If you do not like this article look at another one. It is interesting that you took the time to respond to an article you didn't even want to read in the first place.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:03 am | Report abuse |
    • raisins

      So we're agreed, astrology is totally fictional like the bible.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:04 am | Report abuse |
    • ModernEarthling

      Yeah, Stephan, "don't judge people off!"

      January 14, 2011 at 1:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Ron Jeremy

      Stephen, I still love you.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
    • chris

      The Bible is not fictional!

      January 14, 2011 at 1:45 am | Report abuse |
  2. yep

    Astrology is a bunch of hooey, just like all religions.

    January 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • A

      100% agree

      January 13, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Renee

      Sure... but it's fun and harmless, unlike other religions

      January 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joshua

      "fun and harmless". Is that why there's people that won't leave their homes on days when their horoscope gives a bad outlook? Is that why people spend all their money going to astrologers to get their fortunes read? Astrology, tarot, etc, is all stupid bs that should be expunged from society, especially those astrologers that lie to their customers and tell them its real, when they know it to be fake.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Peter

      exactly. much like all religions they are lying and scamming people. they give false hope and require you to forgo common sense in following them.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ophiuchus

      Yeah almost like that whole Global Warming thing.

      January 14, 2011 at 2:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Maharet


      January 14, 2011 at 3:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Aunt Linda

      All i can say is: Got Science?

      January 14, 2011 at 5:38 am | Report abuse |
    • JF

      I fone were to read the Bible for themself, they would be able to tell whether a preacher is preaching the Truth or lies. But there are not to many people who will read it. But to understand it, can be difficult. Especially when you read it with a closed mind. And Jesus Christ HAS walked the land. He DID die on the cross and rose again in 3 days. It was written not only in the Bible, but also by Greek and Roman historians.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:01 am | Report abuse |
    • numerology LADY

      so you believe in a book that was tampered with lies/poetry? if i tell you that i die 3 days ago would u believe me? i'm a ghost know i'm pragant and never been with a man before i'm a virgin well i was swallowed by a well for 4 days then he droped me off at the beach. it the truth do u believe? LOL

      January 14, 2011 at 4:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Bullcarp

      With your command of English, you should change your name to numerology 12 year old.

      January 14, 2011 at 6:34 am | Report abuse |
    • nordicmetalhead

      As much as I'd like for you to back your claims with facts, your rather liberal interpretation of the English grammatical system would be like a DOS attack on my brain.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Blah


      January 14, 2011 at 8:36 am | Report abuse |
    • LOL

      You're an idiot! lol 😛

      January 14, 2011 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Gwen

      Wait... what?

      January 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Megan

      And if it was written in history then it must be true!! Even if Jesus was a real man that doesn't make him the actual son of God. Did you know that it says in the Bible if a woman cuts her hair she will go to hell? That means every woman I have ever met is going to hell. Do you believe that? If you don't then you can't say you believe the bible.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Comrade2

      I've read the Bible a time or two, can't find that statement in there. Can you tell me where?

      January 14, 2011 at 8:45 am | Report abuse |
    • april 1

      You please tell me where it says that in the Bible because I believe you probably just "heard" that from somebody who was just messing with you and you believed and and still do to this day because in all of my years I have NEVER heard about that saying it in the bible..

      January 15, 2011 at 1:24 am | Report abuse |
    • CanisMajoris

      no.. lol
      keep being brainwashed

      January 14, 2011 at 8:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Enlight

      the question is, who is being brainwashed?

      January 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • NonBeliever

      The fact that Jesus Christ DID in fact live and die does not necessarily mean he rose from the dead three days later. Neither does the fact that Greeks and Romans wrote about it. Ever read about any gods from other religions? The Egyptian god Horus has a life story that is remarkably similar to Christ's. Just sayin'

      January 14, 2011 at 9:42 am | Report abuse |
    • NonBeliever

      ^^^^^ Supposed to be a response to JF

      January 14, 2011 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Because

      Okay, pally. No, there was NEVER any DIRECT recording of a Jesus of Nazareth, nor just a regular ol' Jesus. All of the Greco-Roman writings are dubious, at best, and none reveal any credibility to the existence of Jesus. The Greek texts all refer to either Christians in general or to events happening within Rome regarding a "Chrestus", but never actually speak directly of or about this "Chrestus." Not a single text originates during the lifetime of Jesus, with he closest being an estimated 80 years after his supposed execution. Also, because something is merely written in a text, no matter how old, doesn't make it true. Otherwise it would be fact that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. This is like saying that Scientologist texts prove the existence of Xenu, thetans, and that the Earth was destroyed by H-bombs billions of years ago.

      Also, if the Bible really is the complete and whole word and voice of God, then why was the Bible edited, with various texts being excluded? And not just by the Church, but by scholars and religious leaders during the 2nd Century AD. Also, I don't just mean things like Dead Sea Scrolls (which were mostly Old Testament related). I mean things like the 2 Books of Adam And Eve (where we learn that there was another woman before Eve, who was tossed out of Eden because she would not be subservient to Adam), The General Epistle of Barnabas, The Book Of Jasher (which is actually mentioned in the Bible), Gospel of the Birth of Mary, The Acts Of Paul and Thecla, Thomas’ Gospel Of The Infancy Of Jesus Christ, as well as many other books. How come the History of Bel and The Dragon isn't in the Bible? I mean, come on! It has dragons and teleportation!

      So, seriously, if you're gonna try and say that the Bible tells things like it is, then you have to believe in dragons and teleportation, too. Then again, most of the Bible was written around a time when people thought their kings and rulers were divine gods who had come down to this mortal realm. So, take whatever delusional, mystical, and outright farcical and fanciful ranting as you will.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jami Leigh

      I know all this to be true to. The Holy bible is not the first bible but was edited taking about??? was it 12 to 17 books?? Just like some of the ones you have said. and by the way.....i believe in dragons!

      January 14, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Toby

      Um, sorry bud, there is no record by Romans or Greeks of the zombie carpenter walking around. You are confusing a few forged references which refers to Christians, in the second century, but there is no proof that Jesus even existed. Oh, and the NT contradicts itself everywhere, including the most important part : what happened right after the mythical resurrection, and what was seen at the "tomb" and by whom.
      But don't stop believing your myth just because of facts. Someone's got to pay the pastor's bills, and it might as well be you, not me. 🙂

      January 14, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • gas bubble

      dude ur hilarious i gotta say i give you props!

      January 15, 2011 at 3:03 am | Report abuse |
    • David in Corpus


      January 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dawn of Dread

      AHahahaha!! Finally, something of interest!

      February 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ayrek

      Greek and Roman historians also wrote about the exploits of their gods, when they came to Earth. We know all of their dealings with mortals, about how they fought, drank, laughed, and copulated with humans. So, if a historian says it, it must be true, right?

      Propaganda. Look it up. It's been around a lot longer than you think, and Hitler didn't invent it, he just used it amazingly well. I could say the same for every leader of a fanatical sect, Jesus included.

      I have no doubts that Jesus was a real person who honestly believed he was the son of God, just as I have no doubt that you believe in God, that meatloaf can be delicious, and the sun can cause cancer. These are not debatable issues. But saying that Jesus was beyond a shadow of a doubt the son of God, and he rose from the dead after dying for our sins.. Well, aside from the obvious contradiction, its like saying that ALL meatloaf is delicious. And that's just naivete.

      January 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hellenist

      The myths of the gods are more precious than that. They aren't history. They touch a deep truth within us. They happened and will always happen, but they aren't historical facts. I think people who insist their god really walked among us at some fixed point in history (but who isn't still doing it) have misunderstood the purpose of religion. Religion is about the soul, not about the mind.

      February 2, 2011 at 7:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nope.

      Actually that's wrong.
      There were no contemporary accounts of Jesus whatsoever. The earliest gospel was written at least 30-50 years after his death, and there are zero non-Christian sources that affirm his life and death.
      The Greek and Roman historians you speak of describe "Christians" as a cult religion in the 2nd century and onward, they say nothing about a historical Jesus. As for Josephus, he has been proven to be a forgery.
      Even if a historical Jesus were to exist, there is no proof of his divinity outside of Biblical claims – which is no evidence at all.

      January 14, 2011 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • guest

      actually, there are...ever heard of Josephus? Jewish scholar and historian who wrote about the life and death of Jesus all the while believing that he was not divine

      January 15, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Josephus's authenticity is heavily debated by scholars. Only parts of his writings are known to be full authentic, while the others are dubious at best. Even if his writings are to be authentic, the most he ever says is "there was a guy named Jesus, he was condemned to be crucified, and people still follow his wise teachings to this day." That doesn't say anything about his life, the details of his death, or any mention of a possible resurrection.

      January 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Science

      Prove it... cloth was a fake, so what else is fake? religion is about faith... faith will blind and miss guid. This is why only truth can be proven.

      January 18, 2011 at 4:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Christianity is Overdramatic

      Jesus sounds more like a zombie. With that said, he was a man. For all we know, he was just another cult leader that created a lot of attention. Maybe he was the son of God, but how are we sure that he actually resurrected? I wouldn't be surprised if his followers wrote this just to have power over the people. Also, of course it was written by the Greeks and the Romans. Roman... Roman Catholic... Catholic... Christianity. See a pattern? Mind you, Islam also refers to Jesus, and Gandhi has also said that Jesus was a great man. However, the only "Son of God" link is through Christianity.

      I've read the bible more times than you probably could believe. Growing up in a Catholic home and school, that's just how it was. I was a child, so I wasn't closed-minded when I was reading it. Some of the stories had great morals, sure, but does it mean that Jesus was the Son of God, and that God exists? Not at all. Yes, it has been proven that Jesus was real. No, it has not been proven that he is the Son of God.

      A preacher cannot technically "preach lies" when compared to the Bible because the Bible is not a work of fact. It was written by man, not by God himself, regardless if the "authors" claimed it was the word of God. For all we know, the only "God" that exists never had words for us to follow, or a son that walked the Earth. For all we know there is no God. For all we know Christianity is the correct faith.

      To sum it up: Jesus may have been on the Earth, but that doesn't mean it's FACT that he's the son of God. As for the Greek and Roman reference, it's kind of self-explanatory because that is linked with Roman Catholicism. Do not let your Faith blind you from reason and fact, that's a cesspool for ignorance.

      January 25, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Knightly


      January 14, 2011 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Intellegence??

      All of it is a way to place blame on something and someone else. I believe in controlling my life by positive thinking. MAKE IT A GREAT DAY, Don't let someone tell you it will be bad.

      January 14, 2011 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Katherine

      Good point, Joshua!!

      January 13, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • krozar

      They'll just use something else to compensate: "It's an El Niño year! I must wear a Donald Duck billed-hat every time I go outside on a Thursday!"

      January 14, 2011 at 1:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Ophiuchus

      I'm with you, astrology is the reason our economy is collapsing, our cities are in chaos and the earth is warming, but before we "expunge", shouldn't we first get rid of clowns?

      January 14, 2011 at 3:07 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Good idea about the clowns – but don't eat them – they taste funny.

      January 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • LeAndrea

      You sound stupid

      January 20, 2011 at 9:21 am | Report abuse |
    • scott

      is that like all the preists who lie to their congregations and tell them this silly little zombie jesus story is real when it's really fake? Or all the people won't leave their house on halloween, or spend all their money on credit card transactions to support Ma Baker's 3 inches of makeup?

      January 14, 2011 at 3:10 am | Report abuse |
    • sevresblue

      Just guessin' you're under 30....

      January 14, 2011 at 8:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Justin Bieber

      You're cool.

      January 14, 2011 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
    • more clever than you think

      There have been people saying that about every other belief system for eons. Just deal with the fact that people believe differently than you do and that doesn't make them stupid. It's how they cope. Pluralism-learn to live with it or go be alone on an island.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:35 am | Report abuse |
    • goat

      Actually, people believing in myths to a degree that they forgo science is the definition of stupidity.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
    • LG

      Yeah, kind of like creationism.

      January 14, 2011 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Lindsay

      Yea, no.... Creation doesn't go back and change w/ the alignment of the planets and stars.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • mike

      "yea, no"

      January 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Judith Johnson

      People who believe the myth that Modern Science is always right are just as mis-guided. How many times through history has Known Scientific Fact had to give way to new discoveries? I actually think belief in science has become many people's religion.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Enlight

      it has very much so. it's very sad to see so many noncentered people. of course, this is

      January 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Judith Johnson

      This comment was intended as a reply to goat....

      January 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Enlight

      replies are no longer working because of the greater conspiracy to censor freethinking individuals who've not been brainwashed into the religion of science.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      If you nonsensically don't believe in science, why are you believing that the Internet will function? It certainly didn't exist without science. Do you take medicine that was developed by unproven science? What a joke!

      January 14, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Enlight

      i can see you're trying very hard to comprehend what's going on here, let me help you.
      dissolve your hypothesis. i believe the internet functions because the internet does function (much of the time).

      i don't wish to disprove science, only to offer a balance, which you then can either accept or reject. everything is theoretically explainable with science, but not today, and not ever. so why bother?

      January 14, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Baba Doodlius

      Why bother? I can answer that one.

      Scientists 'bother' because of curiosity. We are genuinely curious about why the world works the way it does. It is not good enough for us to say "it works because it works' – we want to know *why*. Answering one 'why' generally brings up a whole series of additional 'why's' – and we want to answer these as well. Answering that infinite series of 'why's' is the way human knowledge expands – and that's the whole point of science: the Expansion of Human Knowledge.

      This is essentially the problem that proponents of the scientific method have with supernatural beliefs (including religion-based ones): The supernatural represents the end of the advancement of knowledge. If you come to a tough question about why something is the way it is and you answer "It's magic", or "God works in mysterious ways", we see that as essentially giving up. You may be comfortable in accepting one of those answers, but to us it's the end of an entire tree of 'why's', is as an intellectual dead end. Once you accept that dead end, all future knowledge is unattainable, and to us that's just not right.

      I don't really care what you or anybody else believes. Belief is not important to me. I like to quote Carl Sagan, who famously said "I don't want to believe, I want to *know*". If you merely believe something, without ample evidence to back it up, then you don't really *know* it: regardless of how strong your belief is, you don't truly *know* something unless you have clear, repeatable evidence to back it up. (Yes, repeatable – "My horoscope said I'd come into some money, and today I found a $10 bill" is NOT repeatable evidence.) You believe that science is just another form of religion, but it isn't – science is exactly the opposite of religion. It is the difference between seeking to expand knowledge and *explicitly ceasing* the expansion of knowledge.

      I know this post will not change your mind or any of your beliefs, and you will probably reply with something about how I have been "brainwashed". Whatever the case, I am merely trying to state the case for science without resorting to nastiness, flaming, or name-calling.

      Have a nice day!

      January 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      I'm a scientist as well and you are a bit jaded in your idealist view of science.

      There is no observable, repeatable evidence of macroevolution (evolution of new species, gena, phyla, etc. from other species) only conjecture that is touted as a theory and even taught with as much weight as cell theory. That is intellectual irresponsibility and inherent bias on the part of the researchers.

      Some people want to act like science is a flawless and unifying force for the good of mankind and being a scientist I can say with some authority that it simply isn't true. Science can be used to do good or evil...and at least in that sense, it is just like religion.

      January 18, 2011 at 8:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr.Knowe

      You should stop talking to goats. It'll just waste your time, and annoy the goat.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Aezel

      Modern Science never claims to be right 100% of the time. It only claims to seek the truth based upon tangible, observable fact. Scientist admit they were wrong ALL THE TIME, and then revise their theories based upon new information.

      People who believe the crap you spew like putting words in the mouth of scientists are the misguided ones. How does it feel to go through every day of your life being a liar?

      January 14, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      But Judith, that's just the point. Science changes when new information is discovered. That's why scientific endeavor is so powerful: it is able to change when the situation changes. Religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic. There is no new information other than personal interpretation, meaning that it never changes, even when it contradicts reality. As an example, try researching Copernicus.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark C

      When somebody builds an Internet based on whatever moron religion you belong to, then you can log into it and say science is a religion.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Dude ... you're saying people should be tolerant of others? Not cool, intolerance is the only way to go. Especially when you're on the internet

      January 14, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Stephanie

      Tarot Cards, Ouiji Boards, bibles....they probably all get printed at the same factory. They are all human tools, to turn a profit. You think a factory would still make bibles if no one bought them? They still have to pay the electric bill. People that read into all these human things that humans make to make themselves feel better about the unknown are wasting time they could spend doing something productive.

      January 14, 2011 at 5:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Al

      You assume that most people read their Bibles instead of waving them around as they pick and choose what to believe and misquote. That said....good point. I guess I'm with the Pluralism guy, whatever you need to believe to cope go ahead and believe, but don't try to force it onto anyone else. Too bad that rarely happens.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Haley

      People are just trying to share with others what helps them. I think everyone needs to be more understanding of each other and embrace peoples quirks and differences. These are all bitter one-sided arguments. No one will win it.

      January 14, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • krashundburn

      """Tarot Cards, Ouiji Boards, bibles....they probably all get printed at the same factory."""

      I like this.

      January 14, 2011 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
    • virgo

      Like answering to whatever "Higher Power" you want to believe in..

      January 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • kat

      thats right what ever makes ya a better person believe!!!!!!!!!

      January 28, 2011 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Morgan

      So... religion is different how? Most people take it in stride. Everything in moderation.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:41 am | Report abuse |
    • itswhatever

      change a few words in your comment, and you could be talking about any religion. everyone has their beliefs. don't judge.


      "fun and harmless". Is that why there's people that won't leave their homes on days when their horoscope gives a bad outlook? Is that why people spend all their money going to astrologers to get their fortunes read? Astrology, tarot, etc, is all stupid bs that should be expunged from society, especially those astrologers that lie to their customers and tell them its real, when they know it to be fake.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Neerav

      I agree, Joshua. The reality is, unless you believe in the idea of predestination, that YOU are in control of your destiny, and not what is told by the position of the stars and planets in an artificially (and arbitrarily) divided up sky. This year, I am challenging each and every yearly astrology forecast for my zodiac sign (Ariers) in order to prove once and for all that they are useless and have no relevance to how we live oru lives or determine our destiny.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Mr Ram

      What an Aries thing to say! lol

      January 14, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Pnut

      Even if you believe in predestination you are still in control of your destiny. Reality doesn't change just because someone doesn't "believe" in it.
      Just like Evolution !
      To paraphrase Galileo, " The Earth still moves".
      Here's another one from the great man,Galileo, not me.
      "In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea ... gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage – if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some experience of this myself. ... No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." (Galileo Galilei)

      January 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Launcher

      < This year, I am challenging each and every yearly astrology forecast for my zodiac sign

      Or you can just use the forecast to line your cats' litter box, like I do. 😉

      January 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • hubba

      Who does that? it seems you are taking this a bit far. Seasons do affect personality. And that's what western astrology is all about. Open your mind, and open your soul. Sounds like you could use it.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Joeybadabing

      I got cabin fever

      January 14, 2011 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Justin Bieber

      Seasons affect personality? Wow, I never knew that.

      January 14, 2011 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Carolina

      Yea it's called seasonal affective disorder. You can feel more depressed in the winter time than in the summer. Or less extreme lazy, tire quicker. In the summer more upbeat.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • guest

      its also called lack of vitamin D...

      January 15, 2011 at 5:38 am | Report abuse |
    • New Wicca

      Only if you agree we also need to expunge the "ministers of the faith", especially those religious leaders that lie to their followers and continue to tell them god is real, when it can't be proved that he is. All religions are created by MAN, not the gods they are following.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
    • vonStemwede're a Wiccan, who believes in magic and fairies and stuff....and you're gonna criticize people who believe in God...Wow.

      January 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      Try looking something up about Wicca. You sound ignorant.

      I'm not a Wiccan, but Wicca is taught along side with many 'popular' beliefs in almost all university religion courses.
      And if I can be honest, it's all a sham. :]

      January 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • myklds

      It's amazing how a simple topic could turned-into a heated religious debate. And since we're a lil out of the topic here, let's go a lil farther.

      @Sam and to all Atheist.. since you've been bragging about facts, rationale, logic etc..Then, a-n-alyze this:

      Jared Loughner "don't TRUST God."
      Atheists don't BELIEVE God.

      If Jared had sprayed bullets to a bunch of people including a 9-yr old girl, then what worst Atheists are capable of doing?

      And honest and logical answer will be appreciated.

      January 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tulsa

      hey, are you saying Christians don't kill people? How stupid, or blind are you? I doubt you could find a more blood stained religion than Christianity.
      Grow up. And by the way, I am a Christian. I believe in the teachings of Christ. You remember, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? or, "that you do to the least of my bretheran you do unto me also"?
      Amazing so many "Christians" forget those simple and honest tenents of the faith.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Clark Nova

      A Glock 19 CAN'T 'spray' bullets. Thanks for playing.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark C

      You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • book burning locomotive

      the earth is four thousand years old

      January 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • ...

      You tell me how mant people have died because of religion and people beliving. Much more than people dying because people dont belive.

      January 14, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • KM

      Thank you vonStemwede, I was waiting for someone to point out the hypocrisy of Wiccans vs Christians vs Astrologists.

      January 15, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Casca

      Quite honestly, you can't prove that God does not exist either. People will believe what they want to believe and whether it's because they're of weak mind or simply because they're afraid of not having anything beyond our existence is entirely up to them. Sure, there's a lot of terrible things that have been done in the name of religion, but the number of fanatics does not outweigh the number of normal people that just need something good to believe in. People don't want to believe that all that we've come to in spite of our leaps in technology and science and education is violence and hate-speech. I know the desire to see people suffering is natural; I won't lie, sometimes it interests me to hear bad news...But that's not what I want in my heart; personally, I'd prefer unification to vast separation. Violence begets violence and no matter what religious creed you are of, you need to remember that the point of your faith is not to further separate you from others or make you better...It's to make you part of a whole. Likewise, atheists and agnostics. I'm one of your numbers and the lack of belief or presence of confusion over which religion to choose doesn't mean you need to call out people on their beliefs. Do you appreciate it when someone starts laying into you for being an Atheist? I know that it bugs the hell out of me and I feel, sometimes, that I'm looked down upon by pious people. Regardless, we have to start letting bygones be bygones and we have to start coming together.

      There are groups of people out there that would want to see us dead; disjointed and left without a leg to stand on. If that's what you want, so be it. If you'd rather not see that happen, however, I'd suggest that you stop making frivolous arguments over a news' site's comments section and start making a change. Now is not the time to tear eachother apart. Now is the time to stand up as one group of people because regardless of any of our personal hobbies, faiths, etc. we are all human beings and we are all in this together.


      January 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jake

      Scientifically speaking no God cannot be proven to exist. But scientifically speaking neither can the existence of George Washington. Science is based on theory that has to be tested. It can only be proven by a series of tests. When you're talking about the existence of a person or being it is not science that proves it, but history.

      February 5, 2011 at 2:50 am | Report abuse |
    • dmeredith

      I AGREE!! well said.

      January 14, 2011 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Carl W

      Well, the downside to freedom of religion is that people are going to blindly follow all sorts of nutty religious beliefs.

      This guy rose from the dead. That guy parted the Red Sea. This other big dude meditated until he achieved nirvana. This guy flies around the world in a sleigh on Christmas Eve. This other guy and his wife ate a forbidden fruit that screwed up the world for the rest of us. This one dude came from the planet Krypton and flies around the world in blue spandex. It's all BS.

      January 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Khushboo83

      You're absolutely right. It ruins peoples lives by brainwashing them and puts many in financial turmoil. People believe what they say and subconsciously start altering their lives accordingly, then say it was predicted. It's really because they conditioned their brains into doing certain things. It becomes like the chicken or the egg story.....what came first...

      January 23, 2011 at 12:18 am | Report abuse |
    • Cleareye


      January 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richie

      I went to an astrologer for a good chat after a bereavement. Counselling hadn't helped, but I found half an hour with the astrologer to be very uplifting. I wasn't interested in hearing about the future, I just wanted to make sense of my feelings and what had been my relationship. So I think good astrologers provide a useful service. Perhaps they are better tuned into what makes people tick than are psychiatric specialists?

      February 2, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • tomi

      absolutly agree

      December 4, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Helen

      It is arrogant ignorance like this that causes sheep to blindly go to a church and hand over their money every Sunday. I practice Tarot and divination, and well as high magic, and have never charged one penny for what I do. Generalizations like this prove stupidity.
      In my opinion, stupidity should be expunged from society.

      December 7, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • firefightersgurl

      That's eat I think...

      January 14, 2011 at 12:24 am | Report abuse |
    • firefightersgurl

      What lol

      January 14, 2011 at 12:25 am | Report abuse |
    • JF

      That's like saying a quiji board is harmless.

      January 14, 2011 at 3:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Ophiuchus

      Oujii boards are dangerous, a girlfriend once threw one at me and hit me in the head.

      January 14, 2011 at 3:49 am | Report abuse |
    • VikingWitch

      LMAO! thats hilarious!

      January 14, 2011 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Garfield

      i know! somebody hit me with one once and it really hurt!

      January 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sora

      That's ouija. It's a combination of "yes" in French and German, "oui" and "ja" respectively.

      January 14, 2011 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justin Bieber

      Too bad its not a religion.

      January 14, 2011 at 11:13 am | Report abuse |
    • mel

      relax people relax...

      January 14, 2011 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Charissa M.

      ANGRY NOISES!!!!

      January 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rodney T.

      @some dude
      "If you're an athiest, you don't need to convert anybody. -.- You shouldn't even care. Just go back to the books. You seem to need them."
      I think I love you? lol

      January 14, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Except that, you know ... it's not a religion at all.

      January 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • timbo

      fun and harmless...yes..but dumb and inconsequetial just the same

      November 21, 2011 at 9:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Yes

      couldn't have said it better myself.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
  3. banasy

    This is so not news; my daughter and I had this conversation months ago. It wasn't news then, and it isn't now. Why am I commenting on it then, you ask? Because I'm bored, that's why!

    January 13, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Morgan


      January 13, 2011 at 11:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bored Person

      doesn't matter whether its news, an article is an article, and interesting read will be read(proof in the fact you read it regardless), reason is good for mislead people to read

      January 13, 2011 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mich

      This is starting to sound like a yearly thing much like the whole the Mars is as big as the moon thing. I do enjoy the ensuing panic though, and the great comments by some folks.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cheryl

      LoL Too funny!

      January 14, 2011 at 12:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr.Knowe

      I had this discussion 26 years ago... and it wasn't news then.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
  4. MDB

    First of all, Earth's "environment" is connected to the seasons, which is connected to things outside of earth–like, say, it's orbit around the sun and tilted axis? Technically speaking, the first day of Spring on our calendars is completely wrong from a scientific standpoint. When the Earth's axis is perpendicular to the Sun such that its rays are directed toward Earth's equator, you have an equinox. So Spring, Earth's Vernal Equinox, should technically be at that time, however this isn't the case anymore. Similarly, this effect is hardly due to the moon making the Earth "wobble" and more due to the fact that it doesn't take the Earth EXACTLY 365 days + leap year to go around the Sun, so every year we get more and more off. Let's use our brains a little, people.

    January 13, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Thanks for the info Einstein.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Waymon

      @Tom lol

      January 13, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • sg

      @ Tom & Waymon lmao

      January 13, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      The environment isn't determined by the seasons, seasons are determined more by the environment, and what position the sun is in does not necessarily correspond to the season. Yes, I'm aware that the sun drives changes in environment, but there is a lag time. Consider that the summer solstice is not usually the hottest day of summer, temperatures lag behind the position of the sun. THAT is why the seasons don't generally correspond to what position the sun is in, if earth's temperatures matched insolation you'd have a case.

      It has nothing to do with how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun, seasons are determined by ambient temperatures, and since the earth has some thermal latency, you won't get temperatures to respond immediately to the sun. Before you go talking about things being scientifically wrong, you should better understand the science yourself.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      @ Tom & Waymon & sg lmfao

      January 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • fbbhzxv

      @ Tom, Waymon, SG, & Sam hahaha

      January 13, 2011 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Nice try Einstein (MDB), but the inaccuracy you speak of has always been corrected by the fact that years divisible by 100 are not counted as leap years, unless they are also divisible by 400. So don't fret about your equinox being off. Try working on your facts instead.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • didge

      What do you mean, this isn't the case anymore? Of course it is the case.

      The leap day is designed to correct for there not being an exactly integer number of days in a year (planetary rotations relative to the sun in an orbit of the earth around the sun with respect to the equinoxes, i.e. the tropical year, not the sidereal year). The exception in years divisible by 100 further fine-tunes this measurement.

      The reason the constellations don't line up at the same seasonal points as they did a few thousand years ago is not due to our calendar system. It is an astronomical phenomenon, not dependent on our measurements of astronomical events. It does, in fact, depend on the moon.

      Let's use our brains a little, please.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gabby

      U guys are soooo smart!! I hope u have degrees to back em up...I'm sure u do, u smart people u....:)

      January 13, 2011 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      MDB, you maybe trying too hard as the air heads can't grasp what you are saying.

      Astrology was/is the belief that a person is born under one constellation's influence will take those attributes. Astro, is from the Greek word "star". If you take the stars out of the equation, then you are not talking about Astrology but instead of just plain psychic hotline. According to Astrology in the US, I am considered a Taurus. In Astronomy, I was actualy born under the Aries constellation so in reality I am an Aries. If you want to know what constellation was peaking when you were born, just look it up through Astronomy.

      Basicaly, the persons that say that Astrology has nothing to do with stars is beyond BS.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • leslie

      good explanation. I've been explaining this since this story first "broke."

      January 14, 2011 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • sterling

      and the last big earthquake speed up the rotaion of the earth to furthure throw off the calculations, and how many millions of times has that happend before we could even masure that accurately.

      did god make us becuase he was bored,

      or was it the other way around

      January 14, 2011 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      Didge, no, the leap year does not fully account for the difference. Our calender is not off by exactly 1/4 day as what the leap year makes up. According to our calender, Jesus brith date is somewhere in the first week of January since our calender isn't very accurate. Many religions still view the real birth date of Jesus as this and not 12/25.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:20 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      @Simon Jesus' birthday has absolutely nothing to do with anything that we are discussing. The date of Christmas was assigned to line up with the Pagan festival of Saturnalia. Nobody really knows when Jesus' birthday was.

      The leap year does not correct for exactly 1/4 of a day. In the Gregorian calendar, which is what we use today, in contrast to the Julian calendar, years divisible by 100 which are not also divisible by 400 do not include a leap day, despite being divisible by 4. This further corrects to a value of 365.2425 days per year, which is accurate enough to gain only one day every 3200 years.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      By the way that is the third time in this thread that fact has been referenced.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:10 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      Also I might as well say at this point that the etymology of the word "astrology" does not accurately describe it. It may have been misnamed to imply that the stars affect us, when we really are seeing seasonal effects, as this article describes. Similar to how in astronomy, a "planetary nebula" has nothing to do with planets, despite its name.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      Didge, when did I say that Jesus had anything to do with Astronomy? I was just pointing out that our calendar is off by several days on his birthday never mind anything else. When the astrological signs were designated, the stars were off by half a month as compared to now. This is especialy true since we didn't start using the Gregorian calendar until 100 years ago or so.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:27 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      @Simon, all that aside, the original post gave the leap year as an explanation for precession, which is incorrect. Precession is an astronomical phenomenon, not dependent on the calendar, and does in fact have quite a bit to do with the moon.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      It was adopted 250 years ago by the UK and in turn the US. Our calendar is off by over a week as compared to 2000 years ago.

      January 14, 2011 at 1:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      I guess because I am Greek that I have an issue with the word astrology. It does have to do with the stars. Maybe back then they thought the stars had everything to do with seasons. But you must admitt that some simple astronomy is part of astrology.

      "The word "astrology" comes from the Latin term astrologia ("astronomy"),[11] which in turn derives from the Greek noun αστρολογία: ἄστρον, astron ("constellation" or "star") and -λογία, -logia ("the study of"). The word "starcraft" has also traditionally been used to mean astrology." -wikipedia

      January 14, 2011 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      Well, there's at least one star that's relevant to it, yes..

      January 14, 2011 at 1:54 am | Report abuse |
    • MDB

      The seasons are the Summer Solstice, Autumnal Equinox, Winter Solstice, and Vernal Equinox. These four points ARE POINTS IN EARTH'S ORBIT where the sun is directly shining at the Topic of Cancer, Equator, Tropic of Capricorn, and once again the Equator. This has NOTHING to do with temperatures and the weather. You're right, it isn't just seasons that determine the environment–the atmosphere and location on the Earth play a huge part. But your definition of seasons is 100% false, so before you try to shut me down I suggest you actually look up your facts.

      January 14, 2011 at 9:18 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      @MDB, first of all, who are you responding to? Secondly, if you would introduce some precision into your language, you might be taken more seriously. The seasons are Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Spring; the seasonal points are the solstices and equinoxes. And this has everything to do with the temperatures. In case you are responding to Andrew, be advised that he is in fact correct. check it out.

      January 14, 2011 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cleareye

      MDB should get some credit for publicly saying they believe in astrology, it takes guts, or an uncritical mind.

      January 26, 2011 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • timbo

      Need to brush up on your astronomy dude....March 21st is the equinox ...astronomically speaking

      November 21, 2011 at 9:18 am | Report abuse |
  5. Win

    So if the zodiac should be based off of environmental then shouldnt the zodiac be different between the northern and southern hemispheres since the seasons are reversed? Also an alaska winter is much different than a Miami winter so shouldnt people born on the same date in those 2 places have a different sign? Obviously it is just a bunch of nonsense but if Jawer is going to defend it shouldnt he at least try to make a logical arguement?

    January 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      actually if you get your natal charts done, they ask you where you are born because it does affect it. #justsaying

      January 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Twitter?

      Since when was this twitter and you can make a trending topic? LOSER! LMAO

      January 13, 2011 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      the hash tag was a joke #donttaketheinternetseriously

      January 13, 2011 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ron Jeremy

      Matt is a genius! #noheisreallyaf@g

      January 14, 2011 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
  6. Tammy

    Rick has more to say about this at

    January 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
  7. stargazer

    Astrology isn't a religion, it's science. I'm glad Jeff Jawer set the record straight. He and Rick Levine are excellent.

    I'd like to also point out that a person's natal chart is their unique thumbprint of where they were when they were born, and it doesn't change, regardless of the expansion and contraction of the Universe.

    January 13, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Win

      hahaha a "science" I think you might want to look up what science means, my friend.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Sorry but its pseudoscience at best. The means its fake.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Renee

      lol oh my. Sorry Stargazer, I think you have astronomy and astrology confused. One is science, the other is not.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hank Hill

      It's not science. It's BS.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • rohn

      it's not science. science requires evidence and logic.
      Please give me an example of one scientific test (which would be incredibly easy to perform) which has proved astrology true, or an explanation of the causality allowing stars hundreds of thousands of light years away somehow predict what will happen to people born around the same time.

      January 13, 2011 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Allison

      There's actually only expansion of the universe, it's the law of entropy.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • krozar

      To some cultures, especially rural and agrarian ones, there are sociological effects of astrology. But it in itself is not a respected scientific study, as the -ology suffix would suggest. Astrology is an art since it deals with how humanity perceives itself under the changes in the stars. A true scientific view of things, astronomy, would be: "3 minutes and 56 seconds".

      January 13, 2011 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Peter

      so... you admit that the seasonal and constellation based zodiacs are bs or at least inadequate, becasue they arent natal?

      January 13, 2011 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • didge

      @rohn The point the article makes is that it's not actually distant stars having an effect, it's the earth's seasons. Look up imprint vulnerability and you have an easy mechanism.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
    • Peter

      @didge if thats the logic, then someone born in alaska will be of the same personality type as someone born at the same time in florida? and cant weather conditions in fall and spring be very similar? i dont think imprint vulnerability accounts for 12 rotating sets of personality types based only on the sun crossing hemispheres

      January 14, 2011 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      Why are my comments not showing up...

      January 14, 2011 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      @Peter, those are valid points, however I'm not defending the entire astrological metastructure, only pointing to a possible mechanism, which should be enough to give real scientists pause before they dismiss the whole damn thing. I agree that the 12-step division is somewhat arbitrary, and I think many astrologers would grant that, as would a lot of people who are born "on a cusp."

      January 14, 2011 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      In any case, there is a lot of room for correlational studies,

      January 14, 2011 at 1:41 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      which match birthdate against, say, the big five personality dimensions (see Ajna's post below). After the data exists, then let the scientists look for a mechanism 🙂

      January 14, 2011 at 1:43 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      Sorry for the multiple posts, something doesn't like 3 words inserted in between my last two comments. Still troubleshooting

      January 14, 2011 at 1:45 am | Report abuse |
    • didge


      January 14, 2011 at 1:46 am | Report abuse |
    • didge


      January 14, 2011 at 1:46 am | Report abuse |
    • didge


      January 14, 2011 at 1:47 am | Report abuse |
    • didge


      January 14, 2011 at 1:48 am | Report abuse |
    • didge


      January 14, 2011 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
    • didge

      Haha, awesome, the board doesn't like the three letter in the middle of that word which are a synonym for boob

      January 14, 2011 at 1:50 am | Report abuse |
  8. Cryss Robinson

    So if i was born on june 5th 1990 an i still a gemini...? im still confused cause i dont want to be a taurus...

    January 13, 2011 at 10:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sara

      Lol! right!
      I'm a proud scorpio and I certainly don't want to change that

      January 13, 2011 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • ModernEarthling

      Cryss, you can be anything you want to be. I once knew a woman who changed her birthdate because she didn't like the sign she was born with. That simple. These stars a so far away they really have no affect on your life. Trust me. Only YOU have an effect on your life. Be whatever sign you want to be. I'm gonna be a Unicorn!

      January 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • graycesma

      iam what i want to be

      January 13, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jerry

      LMAO @ ModernEarthling! I want to be Unicorn too 😉

      January 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
  9. weenie

    reading this article made my weeenie feel all funny like. whats going on. i hope the endtimes arent near. (see i can post rediculous stuff too you loosers)

    January 13, 2011 at 10:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Erin

      Well, if you're going to be that way, at least most of people posting can actually spell. Try using a spell check function on your computer to post something. Otherwise don't post anything at all. There is no reason to be rude and call everyone "loosers" (as you put it) because they are reading up on current events and posting their replies. Also, please go back to school for all of our sakes.

      January 13, 2011 at 11:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • chloe

      Haha. Erin you're a noob.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:05 am | Report abuse |
  10. Michael

    Lamest hysteria in years. This was the War of the Worlds broadcast for hipsters.

    January 13, 2011 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • didge

      awesome 🙂

      January 14, 2011 at 12:01 am | Report abuse |
  11. HA!

    Funny that this is based on a believe that was founded before the realization that the earth wasn't the center of the universe!!

    January 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • didge

      January 14, 2011 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      Even funnier that the vast majority of the religions on Earth were also founded while they believed the Earth was the center of everything. Religion is sham, just like Astrology, just a much more successful one.

      January 14, 2011 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
  12. Hrrrmmmm

    1. I'm With banasy. 2. LOLROFLFAIL

    January 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
  13. weenie

    my zodiac sign is heathen chineee

    January 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
  14. weenie

    says quit trying to touch me

    January 13, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
  15. danielle o.

    wow i find myself to be somewhat smart but thats just too much for me i mean does it really matter and if indeed it does matter to you then this shouldn't be news to you. But someone did need a story didnt they,....

    January 13, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46