Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:26 am**

This would be optional but here is my 2023 SSR calculated by TMSA 0.4 and hand edited based on the following rules:

The transiting sun doesn't exist (for solars),
non-foreground planets don't exist (perhaps also omit them from the wheel?),
planets in the planet data ordered by % strength
aspects ordered by aspect % strength
cosmic state planets ordered by planetary % strength

Items 3-5 could also be applied to natals, and of course F would be replaced by the specific angle designation already coded in TMSA 1.0.

Thoughts?

Code: Select all

 +-------------16Li46-----------24Vi55-----------26Le06--------------+
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |rPl 04Le07 20°55|
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |rNe 07Li37 17°20|                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |rJu 00Vi51 05°18|                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 08Sc20-----------+----------------+----------------+-----------15Cn43
 |                |                                 |                |
 |                |                                 |                |
 |                |      Transiting (t) Chart       |rUr 08Cn45 25°37|
 |                |         Nelson, Michael         |                |
 |                |          Solar Return           |                |
 |                |     2 Apr 2022 08:21:42 UT      |                |
 |rSa 20Sc06 12°53|         Upland, CA USA          |                |
 |                |      34N05'51" 117W38'54"       |                |
 |                |           UT 08:21:42           |                |
 |                |         RAMC 198°26'21"         |                |
 |                |          OE 23°26'17"           |                |
 |                |         SVP 04Pi57'10"          |                |
 |                |         Sidereal Zodiac         |                |
 |                |         Campanus Houses         |                |
 |                |                                 |                |
 06Sg13-----------+                                 +-----------06Ge13
 |                |        Radical (r) Chart        |                |
 |                |         Nelson, Michael         |                |
 |                |              Natal              |                |
 |                |     1 Apr 1957 08:23:00 PST     |                |
 |                |     Huntington Park, CA USA     |                |
 |                |      33N58'58" 118W12'43"       |                |
 |   tEp 21Sg58   |           UT 16:23:00           |                |
 |                |         RAMC 317°17'55"         |                |
 |                |          OE 23°26'36"           |                |
 |                |         SVP 05Pi51'11"          |                |
 |                |         Sidereal Zodiac         |rMa 15Ta09 09°04|
 |tPl 03Cp22 22°46|         Campanus Houses         |                |
 |                |           AA from BC            |                |
 |                |                                 |                |
 |                |                                 |                |
 15Cp43-----------+----------------+----------------+-----------08Ta20
 |                |tJu 26Aq34 01°08|                |                |
 |                |tNe 28Aq34 02°58|                |                |
 |                |                |rMe 29Pi41 05°50|                |
 |tMa 25Cp18 07°30|                |                |                |
 |tSa 27Cp07 08°34|                |tMo 00Ar27 08°03|                |
 |tVe 01Aq27 10°24|                |rMo 02Ar18 08°45|                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |rVe 14Pi13 18°23|                |                |
 |                |tMe 16Pi53 21°09|                |                |
 |                |rSu 17Pi32 21°12|                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |                |
 |                |                |                |tUr 17Ar55 01°39|
 +-------------26Aq06-----------24Pi55-----------16Ar46--------------+


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl Longitude   Lat   Speed    RA    Decl    Azi     Alt     PVL    Ang G
                           Transiting Planets                           
Mo 00Ar27'22" 02S23 +12°47'  24°31' 07N38 351°00' -47°52'  98°03'  83% F
Me 16Pi52'47" 01S07 + 2°02'  11°24' 03N41  11°21' -51°39'  81°09'  80% F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Radical Planets 
Me 29Pi40'55" 00N35 + 1°56'  22°41' 10N08 354°01' -45°35'  95°50'  91% F                            
Mo 02Ar18'11" 02N04 +12°30'  24°37' 12N28 351°43' -43°04'  98°45'  80% F
Su 17Pi31'46" 00N00 + 0°59'  11°34' 04N58  10°47' -50°24'  81°12'  80% F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Class 1 Aspects 
tMe co rSu 00°04'100% M                                                                            
tMo co rMo 00°42' 99% M                                                 
tMo co rMe 00°46' 99%                                                                                               
----------------------                                                  
rMo co rMe 02°37' 87%                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Cosmic State                              
                           Transiting Planets                           
Mo Ar   | co rMo 00°42'M   co rMe 00°46'    
Me Pi-  | co rSu 00°04'M    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Radical Planets 
Me Pi-  | co tMo 00°46'    co rMo 02°37'                              
Mo Ar   | co tMo 00°42'M   co rMe 02°37'    
Su Pi   | co tMe 00°04'M     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by TMSA 1.0.0 (29 Jul 2022)

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:44 am**

As an option, it might be really nice to have. (I wouldn't want any of this routinely, but you've correctly caught that this is more or less what I do with charts I'm summarizing.)

The transiting Sun rule should only apply to full SSR and Demi-SSR.

In a similar vein BTW (as long as you're tinkering with this) - after I created my "Outstanding Return" chart option file (which I set to show only partile aspects of Class 1 angular planets), I've been thinking an option to skip saving/showing a return that has no aspects showing. (That is, only show "outstanding returns." This would end up producing the (estimating) three to six SLRs and demis per year that were big deals. I didn't mention because it seemed tedious, but while you're juggling solunar display options, I thought I'd mention. (It could go with the simplified view you're demonstrating here and just have a "don't show if no aspects" box?)

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:10 am**

Yes it would be possible to add an option to not display a chart at all if it doesn't meet criteria for angularity and/or aspects as specified. The transiting sun should exist for QSSRs, as it might form mundane aspects/parans distinct from those of the radical sun and indeed might be foreground when the radical sun is not. I think the full listing should be the default but a good summary format could be readily available. Sorting the aspectarian by strength of aspect seems like a good idea in any case (as is done planet by planet in the Cosmic State section)-- why should a wide but class one tMe-rJu aspect be listed before a 10' tMa-rSa aspect?

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:38 am**

mikestar13 wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:10 am The transiting sun should exist for QSSRs, as it might form mundane aspects/parans distinct from those of the radical sun and indeed might be foreground when the radical sun is not.

Ditto Enneads/NSRs. I lean toward also showing it for KSRs just to minimize confusion ("This is a chart of exactly what returning to what?"). It also makes a different impact in Danica's SL charts (there's something different about transiting Sun conjunct natal Moon to the minute being closely foreground,)

I think the full listing should be the default but a good summary format could be readily available.

Makes sense.

Sorting the aspectarian by strength of aspect seems like a good idea in any case (as is done planet by planet in the Cosmic State section)-- why should a wide but class one tMe-rJu aspect be listed before a 10' tMa-rSa aspect?

I still prefer the default to be in planet order, since that's how I look at the chart: My eyes drop to Class 1 column and I want to see the Moon and Sun aspects first, then inner planets, etc. (And the CS report gives it the other way.) - I also look for 100% aspects to jump out but, on "first impression" pass, I want the planet order.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:00 pm**

I will add aspect sorting as an option with planet order as now as the default (but still segregated by class). I will add a display format options section which covers aspect sort order and the other things I mentioned (with planetary order as the default). Maybe an idea is to show the transiting sun (or transiting moon in lunars) in the wheel, planetery data, and cosmic state, but for the purpose of calculation of aspects the transiting and radical sun are treated as one body and only the closer orb is shown, with radical preferred with equal orbs, and of course no listing of tSu - rSu aspects.

I'm also thinking of specialty marking partile aspects in some way (haven't decided how) and that raises a question of what constitutes partile for octiles? Should it be narrower orb than the one degree for major aspects?

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:07 pm**

mikestar13 wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:00 pm Maybe an idea is to show the transiting sun (or transiting moon in lunars) in the wheel, planetery data, and cosmic state, but for the purpose of calculation of aspects the transiting and radical sun are treated as one body and only the closer orb is shown, with radical preferred with equal orbs, and of course no listing of tSu - rSu aspects.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing now? (It sounds right, and also sounds familiar

)

I'm also thinking of specialty marking partile aspects in some way (haven't decided how) and that raises a question of what constitutes partile for octiles? Should it be narrower orb than the one degree for major aspects?

Where are the 100% drop-offs on aspects? It surely is very close to that point.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:54 pm**

It basically is I'm just formalizing the idea, it is the the way 0.4 does it (but the internal process of calculation may change). To have comparable strength with squares and trines, octiles should be partile at 20'. BTW, the aspect strength formula makes a 60' opposition mathematically stronger than a 60' square so in theory partlity should extend a bit beyond one degree (80') for conjunctions/oppositions, also class one should extend to four degrees. Assuming a similar drop off for the entire orb, but a better representation of reality might be to assume conjunctions and oppositions gradually start dropping off slower beyond three degrees but a two degree square and a two degree opposition seem to have no perceptible strength difference to me. So I'd suggest 60' for partility for all major aspects and 20' for octiles (and inconjuncts if used). IOW 1/3 of the class one orb for the default orbs. I want to do some tinkering with the aspect formula. But the default formula will remain sinusoidal in nature.

Posted: **Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:18 pm**

Currently, where does 100% drop to 99? If it's close to that, maybe that should be the visual signal - that it shows 100% - nothing else needed.

At 2° I don't see a lot of difference. I move my co/op Class 1 boundary back and forth from 3 to 4 at different times, and I usually end up thinking 3.5° might be right (but he whole concept loses its easy appeal with that much granularity). So I don't think there's THAT much difference between a 2° opposition and 2° square. Yes, I think the curve should remain as close to a pure sinusoid as possible.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:16 am**

I've been rethinking the exact curve. as it stands, TMSA, calculates the percentage this way for squares and trines: x =cos(8 * orb), then p = 2 *( x -.5) but not less than zero. I actually like the way the numbers look with the formula p =cos(12 * x) from ISR, which gives closely similar results at two degrees but fades faster near the maximum orb. Seems a better fit for the observation that class 3 aspects aren't worth bothering with unless there are few/no closer aspects. Conjuctions and oppositions use a smaller coefficient (9 in ISR, 6, in TMSA 0.4) while octiles use a larger one, inversely proportionate to maximum orb for the aspect. In all cases the strength number is converted to percentage and rounded to the nearest 1% for display. I have decided we don't need special marks for partility.

If I make any change to calculating the strength of conjuctions/oppositions it will be along the lines used for massaging the angularily % for minor angles: alter the input value, not the formula. For conjuctions/opposition this would be orb = (orb - 3°) * 9/14 + 3° for orbs over 3° and then apply the square formula, resulting in identical strengths to 3° but slower fade out (the 3° and 9/14 would be adjusted for different maximum orbs, 9/14 assumes the default 10° for conjuntions and 7.5° for squares -- and assumes a 3° class one orb for both). I want to see some numbers before I decide, so some serious number crunching this weekend is in my future. I will share numbers in this thread.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:51 am**

mikestar13 wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:16 am I've been rethinking the exact curve. as it stands, TMSA, calculates the percentage this way for squares and trines: x =cos(8 * orb), then p = 2 *( x -.5) but not less than zero. I actually like the way the numbers look with the formula p =cos(12 * x) from ISR, which gives closely similar results at two degrees but fades faster near the maximum orb. Seems a better fit for the observation that class 3 aspects aren't worth bothering with unless there are few/no closer aspects.

Let's see.. reconstructing... reviewing what you probably already know... Cosine runs from +1 at 0° to -1 at 180°, then back to +1, so the entire 360° loop has to be fit into 30° for trines, squares, and sextiles, meaning it has to be multiplied by 12. It then runs from +1 at 0° to -1 at 15°, which automatically drops the "below 50%" into a negative number (after 7.5°). For "manifested effect," it runs from 0% at 7°30' to 100% at 0°00'. A 3° orb is the convenient and interesting 80% level, it's at 90% until just past 2°, and - as you say - starts to taper very fast after that. It crosses the pivotal 50% mark at exactly 5°00' and is nearly gone by the time it hits 7°.

The point I'd theoretically attach to "partile" is the point at which the score rounds to 100% (0.995 or higher) of the whole +1 to -1 length, i.e., the above value +1 then /2 is > 0.995. That's about 0°41'. Another way to say this is that the value first calculated above (cos(12x)) has a value of 0.990 or higher.

As an idle musing, not as necessarily germane to this post: I prefer the 12x form but where the +1 down to -1 is rescaled to +1 down to 0. This explains to me what's actually happening: 7.5° getting a score of 50%, meaning an "event" is at least 50% likely to happen (i.e., more likely to happen than not - an utterly meaningful "outside orb"). This gives numbers that feel more intuitively right, e.g., 1° is still 99%, 3° is 90°, 5° is 75% (half-way from baseline to perfect), etc. It's what I think of as the real curve. But I don't think this works well for TMSA's purposes because people aren't apt to intuitively understand when an aspect at the very outer fringes of acceptability has a score of 51%. It communicates better if that score has reached 0%.

So, with the 7.5° = 0 to 0°00' = 100 scale, I can see (effective) "partile" at a glance by noting 100% and 99% aspects, Class 1 is roughly (not precisely; doesn't have to be since it's still user-flexible) 80%, Class 2 ends at 50% if I set at 5° or 30% if I set at 6°, etc.

Conjuctions and oppositions use a smaller coefficient (9 in ISR, 6, in TMSA 0.4)

Yes. Now that I have a little temporary Excel file to replicate all of these, it's easy to confirm that 9x widens the curve base to 10°00' for 0%. (Did I really give these in ISR? I'd completely forgotten that I got that precise. But the ideas and use of the curve did come earlier than that.)

[quopte]while octiles use a larger one, inversely proportionate to maximum orb for the aspect.[/quote]
Ah, are you actually taking the outside Class 3 boundary for this? (Or, if it's blank, the Class 2 boundary, etc.?) That makes sense, though knowing it forces me to rethink whether to have a Class 3 octile value (for completeness, even though I don't think it's operative) or leave it blank. (I just looked: I see that I don't have one set.)

So, if outside orb of an octile is 2°, that makes it 1/5 the conjunction orb so you multiply the conjunction multiplier by 5 - using 45, coincidentally - right? It makes the 99% level just outside 0°10', the 80% (approx Class 1 drop-off) a little less than 0°50', the 50% slice at 1°20', and fades entirely at 2°. - I can't say that I can confirm this is exactly right, but the basic feel is good: It matches the idea that "partile" is only a few minutes orb, there's a critical drop no later than 1°, etc.

It does seem to drop more steeply at the very end since these aspects seem quite solid nearly to 2°, so I probably have to add a Class 3 orb just to make the whole curve run all the way out to the end. If I understood you correctly, it means that if I set a 3° Class 3 boundary (0.3 of the conjunction Class 3 boundary), you would then multiply the conjunction multiplier (9) by 3.33, or 30. This gives 99% down to just past 0°15', 80% (Class 1 approx boundary) about 1°16', 50% at 2°, etc. Again, that isn't offensive to intuition.

I have decided we don't need special marks for partility.

I think that's right. With pen and paper, I do mark it - for years I used a flare pen for partile aspects in Class 1 column, and an ordinary pen for the rest. But I think if we train ourselves and others just to look for the biggest numbers - especially to focus on 100% and 99% aspects - we get the same effect.

Partile, of course, is ultimately arbitrary. The word means "exact," astrologers began using this long ago to mean "exact to the degree," and the 1° boundary seems so close to the critical drop-off in practice that it fits well. But (aside from the fact that we probably wouldn't treat 1°02' all that different from 1°00'), if this threshold has any real, meaningful significance it is because it shows us a threshold in aspect strength. The goal, then, is to find the best expression of the tapering aspect strength curves. I do think we are so close at the 12x and 9x models above that any perception of error in it borders on tenuous fantasy. It's a very close fit to observation.

I think you should use the straight cos(12x) and cos(9x) equations. (I can't remember the reason for moving from them.)

If I make any change to calculating the strength of conjuctions/oppositions it will be along the lines used for massaging the angularily % for minor angles: alter the input value, not the formula. For conjuctions/opposition this would be orb = (orb - 3°) * 9/14 + 3° for orbs over 3° and then apply the square formula, resulting in identical strengths to 3° but slower fade out (the 3° and 9/14 would be adjusted for different maximum orbs, 9/14 assumes the default 10° for conjuntions and 7.5° for squares -- and assumes a 3° class one orb for both).

Just to be clear, while I think (for major angles) that the foreground zone is probably an exact match for the conjunction curve. - It probably IS the conjunction curve (over the years, these two kept looking increasingly like each other until I looked up one day and saw they'd converged in my head). "Foreground" probably isn't a zoning (as thought most of a century ago) so much as something singled out by the real version of "conjunct an angle." (It behaves like that.) The simple cos(12x) formula

And yes, the minor angles have been a pain. Getting them to feel right. Maybe if you treat them the same as octiles? That means that the outside orb (3° by default) would provide a scaler - the default (for 3°) being 30x which gives 80% at 1°16' ("something more than 1°" being what feels right), 50% at 2°, and down from there?

I want to see some numbers before I decide, so some serious number crunching this weekend is in my future. I will share numbers in this thread.

My thought is that simpler is better: the straight cosine curve on a multiplied orb. But you've recently had your head deeper in this than I have, so you may be seeing something I'm missing entirely.

If I'm not missing something determinative, it seems that cos(12x) for trines, sextiles, and squares, cos (9x) for conjunctions, oppositions, and major angles, and the same with a weighted multiplier for octiles, inconjuncts, and minor angles is the way to go.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:39 am**

Almost a digression but really a follow-on...

I've been experimenting lately with having my Class 2 for squares be 5° as it's long been for trines and sextiles. I'm still watching it to see if I miss the 5°00'-6°00' in the Class 2 column.

I started (in the '70s) with 6° for 90/60/120 and then saw that the trines and sextiles just didn't stand up to that in the last degree, so I softened them to 5°. I've kept squares at Class 2 through 6° mostly on principle - though the truth is that I don't often end up putting much attention on the widest of those.

The theoretical curves show a decisive point at 5°00': It's half-way from exact 0°00' to the outermost allowable score. I've decided to honor that measurement and see how it feels. So far, I haven't really noticed one way or the other. (Few charts have aspects in that exact range.)

On thinking this through, I briefly wondered if I wanted to switch out 90/60/120 to an evened-up model where Class 1 ended at 2°30', Class 2 at 5°00', Class 3 at 7°50'. (The last two are hard numerical thresholds in the aspect strength curve.) I decided no, I can't do that: Statistics repeatedly show aggregate significance dropping off at or just past 3°, so I think that boundary needs to be kept.

Just some of my current musing...

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:39 pm**

Maximum orb is calculated thusly:

If the class 3 orb is defined, max orb is the class 3 orb.
If the class 3 orb is not defined, max orb is 1.25 times the class 2 orb.
If the class 2 orb is also not defined, max orb is 2.5 times the class 1 orb.
If the class 1 orb is also not defined, we aren't using that aspect and max orb is irrelevant

TMSA disallows orbs greater than 15° for major aspects and 5° for minor aspects, and disallows inconsistent orb choices such as as setting the class 2 orb of a square narrower than the class 1 orb, or setting class 2 when class 1 is not set.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:16 pm**

mikestar13 wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:39 pm Maximum orb is calculated thusly:

What is the maximum orb used for? Is this for shaping the curve or something else? (I think the only place I bumped into the problem above was in trying to figure out what the octile curve looked like, but I was presuming a specific model of the major aspects.) At least, the simple formula of cosine a multiplier of the orb doesn't seem to need it unless the width of the base is unclear, as in octiles.

Unless... are you allowing the curve to adapt to whatever orbs the user chooses? That makes sense and gives more flexibility to see the same principle of behavior against different (evolving or divergent) views of how wide the effect reaches.

If the class 3 orb is defined, max orb is the class 3 orb.

If the class 3 orb is not defined, max orb is 1.25 times the class 2 orb.

If the class 2 orb is also not defined, max orb is 2.5 times the class 1 orb.

If the class 1 orb is also not defined, we aren't using that aspect and max orb is irrelevant

And yes, Class 3 totally makes sense if it's set. The other multipliers you are using above more or less replicate the default patterns for major aspects.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:01 pm**

Max orb is used to determine the cosine multiplier, which is computed from 90 / max orb, thus 9 for 10°, 12 for 7.5°, 18 for 5°, 30 for 3°, 36 for 2.5.

A max orb of 2° would use a multiplier of 45, which you advocated in ISR for octiles and inconjucts if used (through you did not advocate the use of inconjucts), but is a shade narrow for my taste.

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:11 pm**

It does seem that (to get the curve right) the octile orb needs to stretch to 3° even though I wouldn't be likely to consider then past 2° even when considering Class 3 major aspects.

The curve isn't bad either way but I lean the same way you just stated: It's a bit narrow.

I see what you're doing here. It looks like this is a way to keep the curve sinusoidal while adapting it to whatever orbs someone actually selects. For natals, it seems dead-on. It's probably crimping the strength of oppositions and conjunctions in solunars for me since I only define flat 3° orbs for 0/180/90, but we can't expect the program to accommodate every user's every variation. (It's still close and reasonable.)

I guess I forgot you were doing this - if asked, I'd have said you had hard-coded curve equations. But this makes more sense given user variability (and the fact that we might change our own minds on defaults before we're through).

Posted: **Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:31 pm**

You do recall correctly that the angularity % is hard coded and the classes can be defined for the purpose of angle marks and will later be usable in interpretation but the % is fixed. This has never been the case with aspect curves, they are far easier to adapt to differing orbs (just change the multiplier).

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:27 am**

BTW, I'm not currently calculating % strength for midpoints, but it would be simple: use the aspect formula with a multiplier of 60 with a 90' max orb and 90 with a 60' max orb. (Midpoint orbs are expressed as minutes but represented internally as decimal fractions of degrees.)

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:37 am**

mikestar13 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:27 am BTW, I'm not currently calculating % strength for midpoints, but it would be simple: use the aspect formula with a multiplier of 60 with a 90' max orb and 90 with a 60' max orb. (Midpoint orbs are expressed as minutes but represented internally as decimal fractions of degrees.)

My opinion: It's such a tiny orb that the difference between a curve and linear is going to be trivial. One can get relative strength from the orb.

But other users may have other opinions, of course.

Posted: **Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:01 pm**

Also space saving is more important in he Cosmic State section than in the aspectarian.

Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses

Re: Proposed Format for Solunars and Ingresses