Damon doesn't say he was referring to the Sun sign. Maybe he was talking about people with Aquarius ascendant. Perhaps he could have been asked to clarify, as his question could be valid even for the strictest traditionalist. And Curtis is undoubtedly right that the causes (of physical appearance, character traits etc) must be multiple (both astrological and otherwise).
Graham

I too did not think he was referring to Sun sign astrology.

Of course Curtis is right, no doubt, there are a myriad of reasons for physical characteristics.

Astrologically speaking, I get a hint of Ptolemy in Damon's question. Particularly Tetrabiblos III, Chapter 11 (Robbins), explaining bodily FORM and TEMPERAMENT. Ptolemy is only one of the many, many, many, description from ancient, hellenistic, medieval, Renaissance descriptions of physical appearance and temperament.

Of Bodily Form and Temperament.

Ptolemy: We must then in general observe the eastern horizon and the planets that are upon it or assume its rulership in the way already explained; and in particular also the moon as well; for it is through the formative power of these two places and of their rulers and through the mixture of the two kinds, and furthermore through the forms of the fixed stars that are rising at the same time, that the conformation of the body is ascertained; the ruling planets have most power in this matter and the special characters of their PLACES aid them.

Everyone has their own interpretation and slight variances, coupled with experience and actual observations. The beauty of this forum, is that it is a place to share those observations and personal experience in applying the precepts we have read, as well as get feedback from each other to broaden our own outlooks or clarify our own thinking. Which I think is wonderful!

In addition, it IS SUN SIGN astrology, (coupled with many other techniques) whether anyone admits it or not. The examples are too numerous to mention, thousands of references to the SIGN the Sun and Moon are in. Mind you on a more scholarly level, but Sun Sign never the less.

The rising SIGN
The SIGN the luminaries are in, Moon Sign,
SIGNS which make a planet debilitated, exalted, fall, detriment, etc. On and on.

Damon wrote:

I have a problem with Aquarius being ruled by Saturn alone.
I met quite a lot of them, and although some fit the Saturn stereotype and I often mistake them for Capricorns, others in no way resemble Saturn.
They have normally large heads,curly hair,fiery eyes,are rebellious and have trouble with authorities and are anything but wise. I cant identify this fiery nature with Saturn.

You might say this is due to Sun being in detriment there,but then why isnt Libra similar to Aquarius in that respect,since it is the Sun`s fall?

The sign of Aquarius is only in detriment in regards the sun. The same applies to Damon's comment on Libra where the sun is in its sign of fall. Why would this be of any relevance to a general discussion of these signs unless we are discussing the placement of the sun there?

I personally think damon was thinking in terms of sun signs because I have actually read lots of his posts on Skyscript in my role as a moderator and s/he frequently discusses sun signs.

However, even if his/her comment was restricted to rising signs or more general in focus his/her questioning of the traditional rulership of Aquarius is really not up for discussion on this particular forum because it conflicts with the forum guidelines.

Some people here seem to wonder why some comments are being made that seem to pick up the poster for just discussing sun signs or the traditional rulership system. The answer is that its the role of the moderators to challenge inappropriate comments. Its not our role to sit passively by when forum guidelines are being ignored.

I should also state this topic was already moved to the General forum for the reasons stated above.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7231

Note Damon's comment on Aquarius being 'feisty' which seems to be an argument for Uranus having a role in the rulership of the sign.

Noone is being prevented from discussing this topic on Skyscript. I have already posted there myself. It just doesn't belong here.

Anyway, when fathoming the intentions of a poster becomes as much the focus of a thread rather than the topic itself I think the thread has lost its way. Arguably, this thread should have been locked from the very outset. I have decided to do it now until Tom has a chance to see the recent posts and make a determination on whether to re-open the thread or keep it locked.

Mark