What's your NEW star/zodiac sign?

[emeraldrafael]

Well, I would be an Aries. Down from a Taurus. So F that. I've met aries, and I dont have a single friend that is one. Not to offend anyone, cause I'm not saying every Aries is like that, but the ones I've met were complete and total dicks.

 

[natster43]

My Birthday is May 18th
My old sign: Tauros.
My new sign: Tauros.
Nothing has changed.

 

[Sneaky llama]

I was Aries. I am still Aries

 

[Weaver]

Woulda gone from scorpio to libra.
lame.

 

[crudus]

I'm still a Taurus. Although if I were born in 2009 I would be an Aries.

If I were born after 2009, I'd still be a Sagittarius. Woo! An archer!

I went from a bull to a ram. My element also changed from earth to fire which doesn't really fit.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

Well, I'm pretty sure this undermines the western Zodiac. "Any time your horoscopes (assuming you read those fucking things) were right was a fluke, now it's right." How long before they say this was wrong and another system is right? This, my friends, is my problem with "fact," it usually seems to get replaced by other "fact" the moment people realize they may have been wrong, but don't seem to learn from it.

I wonder if Chinese zodiac will be getting new animal years...

 

[MetaKnight19]

Um, none, seeing as I wasn't born after 2009 (the new calendar only relates to those born after 2009).

But, if I were, I'd now be a Taurus instead of a Gemini, which is LAAAAAAAMMMMEEEE. (Don't get me wrong, Tauruses are cool, I just don't want to be one)

This

Anyway my birthday is on June 21. So what, I'm like a Taurus and a Gemini mixed?

 

[BlueGlowstick]

If I were born after 2009, I'd go from a Capricorn (the goat) to Sagittarius (the archer). AWESOME!

and I haven't heard anything about it being for those born after 2009 yet.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

They weren't from the beginning, it is because of the slow, gradual shifting of the earth over the last 3000 years. The new sign, Ophiucus, is specifically for those born after 2009 in every article I've seen, and it was the adding of the sign that significantly shifted the zodiac calendar.

Astrology is also not 100% celestial based. It also pulls from the solstices and the equinoxes and other terrestial phenomena, meaning that the change is not as big until the 13th sign had to be inserted.

Pretty much everyone I know has fit into the description of their sign for as long as I've known them, regardless of whether they believed in astrology or not.

Ah fair enough then, TIME magazine wasn't the best source to trust but I've never been big on astrology beyond knowing my sign and a couple of the personality traits it's meant to give me.

Thanks for clearing it up anyway

And it can be surprising how often people do fit their sign, even if they don't realise it. Although I'm far from being as social and extroverted as many summaries of Saggitarians would have me believe I should be..

 

[Da Joz]

Apparently I'm a capricorn now, was an aquarius. I preferred the latter.

 

[Byere]

I can't tell if this is good or bad, but I'm still a Taurean

 

[ilspooner]

I'm a Libra now. D: But I will still classify myself as a Scorpio. Scorpio is awesome! >
EDIT: Oh, it only affects those born after 2009. Yay!

 

[TheTygre]

... Oh, like -fuck- I'm a Libra. Screw you, new horoscope; I'm a god-damn Scorpio for life!

 

[AceAngel]

I'm a two head bull now.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

I am appaerently a Sagittarius now. I miss being a Capricorn, I mean come one, I was a fish-goat.

 

[sumanoskae]

If I was born after 2009 I'd be a Virgo.

As is, I'm a Libra

 

[hermes]

I am now a Virgo.

Not that big of a deal, although I will have to find a new gold saint.

 

[Thedayrecker]

I'd still be a Leo

 

[Jaded Scribe]

They weren't from the beginning, it is because of the slow, gradual shifting of the earth over the last 3000 years. The new sign, Ophiucus, is specifically for those born after 2009 in every article I've seen, and it was the adding of the sign that significantly shifted the zodiac calendar.

Astrology is also not 100% celestial based. It also pulls from the solstices and the equinoxes and other terrestial phenomena, meaning that the change is not as big until the 13th sign had to be inserted.

Pretty much everyone I know has fit into the description of their sign for as long as I've known them, regardless of whether they believed in astrology or not.

Ah fair enough then, TIME magazine wasn't the best source to trust but I've never been big on astrology beyond knowing my sign and a couple of the personality traits it's meant to give me.

Thanks for clearing it up anyway

And it can be surprising how often people do fit their sign, even if they don't realise it. Although I'm far from being as social and extroverted as many summaries of Saggitarians would have me believe I should be..

If you're actually interested, dig around your local library for a book called Power Astrology [http://www.amazon.com/Power-Astrology-Robin-Macnaughton/dp/0671671812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295038207&sr=8-1]. It goes into some better info than the dime-store and web-based descriptions.

You don't have to believe everything it says, and obviously how you were brought up can affect a LOT, but I found it interesting, and it gave me some deeper information about what my sign's strengths and weaknesses were, and I was able to kinda pinpoint my own faults and untapped strengths.