106
radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant
The way I see is different. Radicality and AC are closely tied. Any election, event chart, AC is given to those who initiate action. If I start something when the time is not right(LOH and LOA not in agreement) then the project/enterprise or whatever I initiated won't be likely to go to my liking. In football event charts we haven't given AC to teams who kick off but if the AC is represented by underdogs and the chart is not radical, then the result isn't favourable for the AC. This is how I see it and I appreciate people seeing this differently :)
Last edited by Gem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

107
This is how I see it and I appreciate people seeing this differently
Fair enough, but the proof of the pudding is in examples :)
if the AC is represented by underdogs and the chart is not radical, then the result isn't favourable for the AC.
In this game the chart was radical, so according to your reasoning, that would mean the result would be favourable for the Asc underdogs, Everton, but it wasn't.

108
A football match is a two-way affair, like a marriage or the crossing of a bridge. As if there were two towns on either side of a river, which side of the river owns the bridge? Which team is in possession or command of the brigde from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant, but who wins the football match or is left standing on the bridge after the battle has been fought - that is the question.

Yes, there are several ways of looking at it, Gem, and all our individual ideas appear to be having a great rally at present! :' Great contribution!
http://www.astronor.com

109
Ficina
I know I got the Everton result wrong (don't need to be told). I'm not trying to prove anything nor am I trying to convince anyone I'm right. I only wrote how I understand the radicality.
according to your reasoning, that would mean the result would be favourable for the Asc underdogs, Everton, but it wasn't.
The chart being radical was one of the reasons I thought that Everton wouldn't be beaten. I do acknowledge that my way of looking at charts didn't work in this instance, unless I gave the AC to Chelsea.

110
Which team is in possession or command of the bridge from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Andrew :?

111
Andrew
A football match is a two-way affair, like a marriage or the crossing of a bridge. As if there were two towns on either side of a river, which side of the river owns the bridge? Which team is in possession or command of the brigde from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant, but who wins the football match or is left standing on the bridge after the battle has been fought - that is the question
Nicely put. You do have a way with words. One thing I realise is that there are no rigid, hard and fast rules we can stick with. Every chart is different and there're different ways of looking at it.

113
Ficina wrote:
Which team is in possession or command of the bridge from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Andrew :?
He means faves, I think.

114
One thing I realise is that there are no rigid, hard and fast rules we can stick with. Every chart is different and there're different ways of looking at it.
That's very true, Gem, and it's what makes it so difficult to know which testimonies work and when because they appear in different combinations in different charts :???:

115
Ficina wrote: This is just a retrospective to try and give us pointers for the future :)
I got angry (yes I'm short-tempered and hot-headed) becuase your posts implied your way was right and mine was wrong. I appreciate different approaches and do want to understand why you and Andrew think that
radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant!
Any help'll be greatly appreciated :)

116
I absolutely agree there's no such thing as one correct way and I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

I'll have a bash at explaining how I see it, based on what Andrew has said.

If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins. Obviously other testimonies (if any) then have to be considered. If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win. It may be a draw or underdogs win. As Andrew puts it, non-radicality moves the result away from the favourite.

How does that sound? :)

117
Not bad :) especially if faves are odds-on.
the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.
Most of the time though, we can't expect anything. What about the time when either side is not clear favourite?
If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.... If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win.
This is all viewed from faves' perspectives ( chart being identified with faves). It makes sense only if the AC is given to faves.

I'm though, actually reviewing my practice of giving home team AC, when away teams are faves, like yesterday's game between Everton-Chelsea.

Thanks anyway for the explanation :) Much appreciated. I do now see your way of looking at this.

One more thing I forgot to comment this morning:
For event charts he says "Forget essential dignity, forget accidental dignity, forget receptions. They simply don't work in these charts." (p.82)
JF contradicts himself when he goes on to say that bodily placement and house placement are very powerful testimonies, as they are in essence the same as accidental diginities.