|
Author
|
Topic: I shouldn't but will.
|
thirteen
Knowflake Posts: 785
From: Rochester Hills, MI USA
Registered: May 2004
|
posted June 10, 2005 12:33 PM
 
Can someone do this name for me. Its someone I used to care for a long time ago who is now free and who i have been in contact with.A C D EEEE F L RR S TT V IP: Logged |
Bluemoon
Knowflake Posts: 3233
From: Stafford, VA USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted June 10, 2005 02:12 PM
I would be happy too, 13. I have been looking for a lexi to do. IP: Logged |
thirteen
Knowflake Posts: 785
From: Rochester Hills, MI USA
Registered: May 2004
|
posted June 10, 2005 02:21 PM
Oh goody, i was hoping you would take it. I think yours are just great. Thank you.IP: Logged |
Bluemoon
Knowflake Posts: 3233
From: Stafford, VA USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted June 12, 2005 10:58 AM
I will work on it now. I was having 2 much fun all weekend!  IP: Logged |
Bluemoon
Knowflake Posts: 3233
From: Stafford, VA USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted June 12, 2005 02:51 PM
RESERVED ELDERS TEST A CLEVER SERF
A SEER REFLECTS, A SECRET TEST
DESERVE RESPECT
FRETTIN
FEEL FEVER FESTER
FASTED, STARVE, FEEL DEAD, DEFEAT
A SLAVE FADES, FREED
TASTE TEARS, FEEL FEAR, SEE SCAR(S)
A VAST ACRE, TREES
A VASTER DESERT
“A SEED, EVE”, A STARTER, VERDE
A TALE REVERSED, ALTERED, RESET
REFER TO ELDEST SELF, A DEED
words I got:REVERTS FELT LEFT VEST SELF ERR VET RESTS REVS FRETS LETS LEST DEFLECT REFLECTS CRESTED FECES REVERT LTD DR FRED TERCEL CLEVER ELECTS SELECTS ELECTS ERECTS SECRET ELF DELFT VELDT FEVERS STEER STREET TERSE TREES RESET SET CLEF SERVED REDS VERSE SERVE SEVER EVERT VEER SET FRED FEDS FESTER TEST SERF FRED REFER FRET SECT DECEIVER REVERSED LET RESET TERSE ESTER ELDERS ELDEST STEVE ACRE TEST RACE STEVE RAVES FRAT FAT ED FRETTED AVERTS REELED LEERED FLEE FEEL DEED STARVE VASTER TREATS STARTER VCR TASTER EVE VERDE TEARS FEET LATE FESTERED REED DEER SEED DESERT TALE DEFERS FREED TEAL FTC RESERVED TEAL FTC REVERSED TEAL FTC DECEIVER SLAVE FASTED DAVE FADES DAFTER ELSE LEE EEL SET SEE TEE ERR REVEL ALTERED TREAD DEALERS DEFEAT DRAFTEE FEARED SCAR FREED CLAD
IP: Logged |
thirteen
Knowflake Posts: 785
From: Rochester Hills, MI USA
Registered: May 2004
|
posted June 14, 2005 08:54 AM
Bluemoon, thank you. i was hoping for a more dramatic read but the answer i am looking for is there. A secret test. Thats it. That is what he has been to me a few times over the years and now again. I set this soul test up for myself before i was born. I guess im going to have to thank him for taking part in my growth as a human being.
Thank you again!IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 14, 2005 09:08 AM
thirteen, i wrote down those letters... will be back with a lexi for you!IP: Logged |
Bluemoon
Knowflake Posts: 3233
From: Stafford, VA USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted June 14, 2005 10:03 AM
you are welcome. Sorry not more dramatic! Crystelle, I cant wait to see what you get! IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 14, 2005 03:33 PM
A RARE DEFEAT (?)
A FAR (AGO) START FAL(L)S FLAT.TEARS... FAL(L)S (ON) DEAF EARS. "STARVE", "ROT"- FLEE. AS LATE FACTS LEAD (TO) STALE TASTE-
A FAD.
A STALE DEAL. FEEL A FADE. STARE AT SAFER DEAL.
VAST LEADS LEFT. A STAR CLAD STATE AS FATE'S RARE RATE.
A RED STAR FEEDS CLEAN LEADS. SEEDS. A SEED ROTS, A SEED FADES, A SEED STARVES, A SEED LEADS, A(N)D A SEED LASTS-
(ALL (O)F T(H)ESE ARE TR(u)E!) IP: Logged |
thirteen
Knowflake Posts: 785
From: Rochester Hills, MI USA
Registered: May 2004
|
posted June 14, 2005 04:23 PM
Thank you for doing this one. Again, still not a whole lot of anything to fill my dramatic imagination.IP: Logged |
Bluemoon
Knowflake Posts: 3233
From: Stafford, VA USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted June 14, 2005 05:18 PM
 Cool Crystelle! IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 16, 2005 10:55 AM
 IP: Logged |
fayte.m
Knowflake Posts: 5816
From:
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted June 16, 2005 02:09 PM
OK Ladies......Here is where I have a question......Why were these words chosen when some of the letters are not in the source word?
That is one of my peeves...as it can severely alter the meaning of a lexigram.....Ones that can seriously affect the meaning of the Lexigram are # below, with added letters in upper case bolded.
This is not a simple adding of letters such as "a", but adding letters to create longer/meaningful words that simply are NOT THERE! To me that invalidates the Lexigram. I will rant more on a later post here about ADDING letters, forcing a Lexigram to lie. Bluemoon;
Your errors are
resPect...#
frettIN
deaD...#
tO
deeD ...#
restS ...#
selectS...#
deceIver...#
scarS...#
And here are crystelle's:
rOt...#
rOts...#
cleaN...#
seedS...#
starveS...#
alL...# crystelle, You did however set these ones off correctly because they were added letters.
aNd
aLL...#
Of
tHese
trUe...# 
IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 17, 2005 11:45 AM
fayte.m,You're right. This was the first lexigram I had done in a while. My second one was better, as far as that goes. I agree with you on that. Dont know why I included the "O" like I did- especially. It was a mistake. I feel that there are a few exceptions though. For instance, it makes sense to me to include certain words in parenthesis in order to make it clear. Like "to", "and", or "a". It clarifies the point you are trying to get accross. Because I think that when you are channeling a lexigram, it makes certain sense to you what you're trying to say, but a few helper words can really clarify the point to the person reading. Not sure if this makes any sense. I think it would be easier to explain in person. BUT I DO TOTALLY agree with you about adding letters that are just plain not there to make words. IP: Logged |
fayte.m
Knowflake Posts: 5816
From:
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted June 17, 2005 12:25 PM
crystelle!!!!!  YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY!
Finally I feel I am not beating my head against the great wall of the rules of Linda!
I respect her greatly on astrology...but I do not agree with her lexi rules. Thank you!
I was not trying to make you feel bad. I am glad you understand! I argue with folks alot about this and other lexigram issues.
I agree...adding certain "tame" or "safe"
figures of speech to help clarify and connect words in a lexigram is usually not a problem....such as the actual words, not just the letters into forming "unsafe" meaning changing words. But the words..."A"...And..an..to..and so forth are often acceptable...even though I try to avoid doing so...I am a stubborn purest when it comes to anagramming and Lexigramming. That is why that letter "b" in my Soulmates
lexigram(version #1) annoys me so much!!!!
Did you see some of mine? I do not do them Linda's way.
If you are interested I will link my favorites I did.
No...it was blatant words such as the following that I feel can radically alter and affect the accuracy and meaning of the resulting lexigram. Such words are(with the added letters in caps)
resPect
deaD
deeD
deceIver
rOt
CleaN
aLL
trUe Thank you for replying and not getting angry with me....I really want to discuss these things...I posed a question in several ways...several times (I will find that too, if you are interested!) but either got no answer or more of the "because that is the way it is" type answers. So again...thank you for replying with so much respect and thought!
Love
Fayte PS.I read your post again and thought I should respond some more..
You said:
quote:
You're right. This was the first lexigram I had done in a while. My second one was better, as far as that goes. I agree with you on that. Dont know why I included the "O" like I did- especially. It was a mistake.
By my logical rules yes, it was a mistake....but as you are here doing them in Lindaland....you broke none of her rules in that respect. But I am glad you saw what I meant!
You said: quote:
I feel that there are a few exceptions though. For instance, it makes sense to me to include certain words in parenthesis in order to make it clear. Like "to", "and", or "a". It clarifies the point you are trying to get accross.... a few helper words can really clarify the point to the person reading.
Oh yes! I do agree! If there are not ANY words to use as helpers...it can be very hard...sometimes even with judicious use of carefully placed punctuations here and there to help clarify the meaning..to once in a great while virtually impossible to construct a "smoothe" sounding lexigram.
Then you said: quote:
Not sure if this makes any sense.
You made alot of sense! Actually the first person who really has in response to my peevings and rants! THANK YOU!
Then you said: quote:
BUT I DO TOTALLY agree with you about adding letters that are just plain not there to make words.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Exactly the point, one of the main points I have been desperate to get across to everyone!
YOU ARE A REAL SWEETHEART!
IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 20, 2005 01:21 PM
Fayte.m,SO glad I made your day! (kinda makes my day  I would like to have links to all of the things you were refering to. I feel like I cannot comment on everything till I read what kind of discussions have been going on. I honestly do not remember specifically what Linda's rules were. I do believe though that overall, Linda would advocate trusting one's inner wisdom over someone elses (even hers!) If people feel that strongly about following her rules to a tee, then I cant see any sense in arguing that either. (but I guess I just need to understand the popular opinion around here first) I was thinking about this over the weekend and another exception I felt made sense was this: words that may look different than the normal spelling, but sound the same are also ok. (example: tru, crak, u, r) what do you think? (dont really like the way some of them feel, but I wouldnt really argue it)
Please post the links. I am anxious to read. 
,crystelle
IP: Logged |
fayte.m
Knowflake Posts: 5816
From:
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted June 20, 2005 08:36 PM
crystelle!
I only use the "clipped" words when there is no other option avaiable to make a lucid lexigram. But generally I agree...phonetics and slang are ok to use...AS LONG AS YOU DO HAVE THOSE LETTERS! Now remember that is my way/rules, not Linda's! But yes...use them if you need to....like:
Nite
Lite
Brite
but not rite for right...too confusing as there is a real word "rite".
But tru is ok because it is an archaism...as are such words as: ye for you and yea..thy, thee, and so forth...if it adds clarity to a lexigram and you are not adding or removing letters...sure, go ahead!
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001399.html http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001413.htmlOk..this was an argument with others I had, and a lexigram I had done by using the words found in the ENTIRE sentebce to find words for the resulting lexigram. At first I messed up...accidentally added letters...but I went back and fixed them. So all the words came from the previous phrase. I will add that link after the argument link here:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001397.html http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001276-4.html Ok...I did four of them by totally ripping apart the entire previous sentence...and all my words(unless I messed up and did not catch it!) are from letters found in the entire previous sentence. Then the last one I had to do it the "game" way...and add words to the required lexigrammed ones. But there just was not much one could do with the previous "wow"...or the thread would have ended. And that pesky "be" in the first "SOULMATES" lexigram....which Peta has yet to say anything about(the lexigrams)...even though she wanted me to do "soulmates". So she either has not seen them, or she hates them....still waiting PETA!!!!!
I did one for Tranquil Poet but used some of the wrong info...but I have fixed it...just waiting to see if TP has anything else to add like the age of the male whose name ?She? He? wanted a lexigram of...Steven Junko.
If TP still wants it and I get an age..child or adult at least...I will repost the lexigram and the interpretation again. But I do not want to get the wrong information mixed up in it..again. It did end up to be even better when I did it over...but I am still waiting for a reply from TP.
Ok...going to check about a few minutes...I will try to check back at least once a day during this hectic week...... Ooops...here is the one for Mary Carmen....I am still working on her longer one with her last name included... http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001423.html IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 21, 2005 11:47 AM
fayte,
Wow a lot of info. I looked through all the links. I really like your lexigrams. Seems that there are a lot of opinions about this. Mainly it seems that the concensus is that one should follow their own intuition. Well, at least that is my perception and what I get out of this! And what I plan to do! I am able to see and appreciate most any view (unless it hurts someone)-
My ascendant is in pisces  by the way. It may help shed light for you while doing my lexi. I also think it aids in my ability to see all angles- and oneness and the circle that is created with an issue like this one.I appreciate your passion for this topic and I can see how well meaning you are in the words you choose to use! You have a wonderful attitude.
Fayte.m  , Crystelle IP: Logged |
crystelle
Knowflake Posts: 425
From: :)
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted June 21, 2005 12:09 PM
something else that I've been thinking about lately: the point about the amount of letters, and how many words you can make and all that... well, to me if you are simply channeling a story or whatever you call it (lexi), then it doesnt matter if there are a lot of words. For me, I like it when there are plenty of letters, because it is easier. That way, I can feel free to really be open to hearing instead of feeling tied down to a limited amount of words. I feel like I make more meaningful lexigrams and am attracted to doing them when there are plenty of words. Just me... IP: Logged |
fayte.m
Knowflake Posts: 5816
From:
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted June 21, 2005 04:20 PM
Even Linda said list ALL your words first.
from myself:
quote:
The real magic is in creating the Lexigram, not in finding the words. One should never be so vain or pompous to believe their vocabulary is complete enough to do a Lexigram full justice.
Anagram generators are a joke in my opinion.
AS for the so called "divine intervention", Muses, or druids....
The MAGIC begins when one has All the words they can find, from the name/phrase/date etcetera to be lexigrammed, using ANY method they choose. quote:
That is when the real magic begins, as one can then avail themselves of "divine intervention".
Many folks have indeed found the "rules" to be a unnecessary hinderance.
To clarify; from another thread:
quote:
Oh, this is wonderful. Thank you! The 5 vowels / 15 letters rule felt very restrictive and limiting to me. And in regards to TOO many words... well, if you really tune into it you will only see what you need to see, right?
Can't wait to hear more
Definitely! Even if you have a 1,000 words or more, you will still only use a small part of them in a resulting Lexigram.
ONLY words that"RESONATE"to your mind or intuition will jump out and say,
"Use me!".
So unless you try to use all of them...which is generally ridiculous....
Then yes...
Only what is Relevant will jump or stand out if you let it happen.
To FORCE a Lexigram to say what you desire rather than looking at the words and letting the relevent ones catch your mind's eye as you meditate over them...reading them.
Forcing means: ADDING LETTERS.
You are trying to FORCE the LEXIGRAM TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THERE....No matter how much you want it to be , it is not valid! That is deluding one's self.
Let the words you HAVE speak to you.
The "right words", even on a large list, will reveal themselves and the rest will be ignored.
Too many folks remove letters because of what they have come to believe, according to certain "rules" that one must remove letters and vowels to comply with the "rules".
Yet these same folks then turn around and ADD LETTERS NOT ACTUALLY FOUND in the original source word/name/phrase, etcetera.
That is simply illogical at best. And seriously invalidates the accuracy of the resulting Lexigram, which would then no longer be based completely on the
original source word/name/phrase, etcetera, but instead a butchered and altered version. IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
