I’m a Sagittarius (born Nov. 22) and I think the description of a Sag is 85% accurate for me. I love to travel, leave lots to chance, and am wicked independent. But, according to that website, I’m more of an Aquarius and definitely not a Libra. Huh…
I’m a Capricorn. According to the reverse astrology site, I’m a Virgo.
Either one could fit. This is because astrology is rubbish. The personality traits assigned to the various signs are vague enough that they can fit pretty much anybody.
I’m a Cancer (June 26), and it fit me more when I was younger, than it does now. I was very sensitive, shy, overly emotional.
Happy upcoming b-day, hillbilly queen. Mine’s the next day.
That reverse-astrology test told me I was a Virgo, and Cancer was pretty low on the list. usually, though, when people try to guess mine, they guess Cancer. I’ve never believed in astrology, but the typical descriptions for Cancer really fits me; shy, moody, emotional, and tends to stay at home.
And mine’s the 28th, yay for us. 
The reverse site claimed I’m a Gemini, and since I’m only a Cancer by 6 days that was nearly enough to make me go ‘ooooh!’ Then I realized that at nearly 6 weeks premature, shouldn’t I have been a Leo anyway? :rolleyes:
Just got a little Cancer personality book thingy as an early present last night, my friends had fun reading thru it going “Oh, that’s not you, you never do that, not at all you!” Sure, a couple of traits fit, but a couple fit from every sign, never enough of one sign to make me identify with it, though.
I’m also a Pisces. It tells me I’m a Virgo. I see a trend.
Female, Virgo, and it most definitely fits me.
I’m an Aquarius. It told me I was an Aquarius. Astrology, however, is still B.S.
Yeah, I saw that after posting but kind of hoped no-one else would notice so I wouldn’t look like a moron. Thanks a lot.
The spirits tell me you were . . . born on a monday.
To answer the OP – I suppose so, in some ways. Same for all the “signs”.
Problem is, the “Sun signs” don’t even fit the Sun signs. That is, your “Sun sign” is supposed to be based on where the Sun is when you’re born. However, the chart in the daily newspaper is based on the sky of a couple of thousands years ago. For instance, I was born on November 10. According to the paper, that would make my sign Scorpio. However, on the day of my birth the Sun was actually smack dab in Libra.
That’s one of the irritating things about astrology; not only is it based on absurd premises, but it doesn’t even make sense in that context. I’ve read an astrology column that will say specifically something like “Mars is moving into Gemini this week” when a cursory look at the actual night sky will show this is nowhere near the truth. It’s hard to take the pseudoscience seriously when it doesn’t reflect the most basic facts of naked-eye astronomy.
(Not to denigrate the ancient Babylonians. Imagine being out in the desert thousands of years ago, knowing little about the structure and principles of the physical universe, with the brilliant sky of stars, Moon, planets, meteors and comets spread out above you. So mysterious and immense; it would be natural to think that wisdom could be gained by studying it. And so it can; just not with moronic “Sun signs”.)