posted September 15, 2008 08:56 PM            

ADIEU AGROUND AGUE ALLIUM ALLUDE ALLUDING ALLURING ALOUD ALUM AMOUR ANGULAR ANNUAL ANNUL ARGUE ARGUED AROUND AUDIO AUGER AULD AUM AURA AURAL DEGREE DELUGE DIALOGUE DIEU DOUR DRUG DRUM DUAL DUE DUEL DUG DULL DUN DUNE DUNG DUNGEON DUO DURING EERIE EMERGE EMERGED EMU ENDURE ENDURING ENGINEER ENNUI GAUL GENUINE GERANIUM GLANDULAR GLUE GLUED GLUER GNU GOURD GRADUAL GROUND GRUEL GUARD GUARDIAN GUIDE GUINEA GULL GUM GUN GUNNER INDULGE INURE LANGUID LANGUOR LAUD LAUREL LEAGUE LIEU LINOLEUM LOUD LOUDER LOUNGE LUG LUNA LUNAR LUNE LUNG LURE LURID MANUAL MANURE MANURING MAUL MOULD MOUND MOURN MOURNED MOURNING MUD MUG MULE MULLER MULLIGAN MUNDANE MURAL NEEDLE NEURAL NEURO NOUN NUDE NULL NUMERAL NUN OUI OUR RADIUM REDEEM ROGUE ROUGE ROUND ROUNDING RUDE RUE RUG RUIN RUINED RULE RULED RULING RUM RUN RUNE RUNG RUNNING UGLIER ULNA ULNAR UNDER UNDERGO UNDERGONE UNDERLAIN UNDERLIE UNDO UNDONE UNI UNION UNLEARN UNLEARNED UNLOAD UNLOADER UNLOADING UNREAL UR UREA URGE URGED URINE URN

That is why I dispute the odd notion that one can get most any word in any dictionary by using all the vowels. There are over a 1,000,000 (million) words in the Language. Add in tenses etcetera and the count is even higher.
Anyone trying to Lexigram Randall's name can clearly see that he has very very very far from "MOST EVERY WORD" in any dictionary!

In the Lexigramming world, any name having less than 1,500 words is considered a small to very small word list; and under 500 is very small indeed.

Sorry..but I must disagree...adding ALL the vowels does NOT give one ALL THE WORDS in ANY dictionary.
That is a logic call and can be proven factually.
I mean absolutely no disrespect towards Linda as some may think.
She did not research as deeply as I have, nor as long. If she had done so, and produced any long Lexigrams (and without errors) she would have changed some of her rules I believe, being she was not an ignorant person.

posted September 30, 2008 12:50 AM              

I read every post on this thread and wow!
nuff said lol..

posted February 03, 2009 08:22 AM            

What some call a Lexigram when it is NOT a Lexigram
WHAT IS NOT A LEXIGRAM!

Many folks have misconception that a word list found within a name, phrase, date, title, etcetera is a Lexigram and or an Anagram.
THAT IS UNTRUE!

The following is a form of Lexigram Based Reading which many confuse with a PURE LEXIGRAM!
While an easy and interesting way to look at Lexigrammed words from the source (name, phrase, etcetera one is Lexigramming)
The following is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a TRUE or PURE LEXIGRAM!

ELVIS AARON PRESLEY
Known AS the King of Rock "N" ROLL OR simply The King.
PRESLEY began his career AS ONE of the first performers of ROCKabilly.
His NOVEL VERSIONS of existing songs made him popular.
He performed IN LAS Vegas during his career.
He IS ONE of the best selling and most influential artists IN the history of popular music.
While not OPERAS, his PASSION for LOVE songs LIVES ON!
IS ELVIS still ALIVE? Some SAY ELVIS LIVES ON IN A secret place.
He still PLEASES us with the LOVE songs he left at our LOSS of him.

Many folks do oddly consider the above as an actual Lexigram
which it is not.
That example is a LEXIGRAMED BASED READING or LBR, in which words found within the source, here being the name:
ELVIS AARON PRESLEY
are strung together by words not found within his name.
In the above example only words which can be found within his name are in UPPER CASE LETTERS.

Another example which would be touted as a Lexigram by fans of the late Linda Goodman is the following:

ELVIS AARON PRESLEY
(k)NO(w)N AS (th)E (k)IN(g) O(f) RO(ck) "N" ROLL OR SI(m)PLY (th)E (k)IN(g.)

posted February 11, 2009 01:26 AM            

quote : Sorry..but I must disagree...adding ALL the vowels does NOT give one ALL THE WORDS in ANY dictionary.

Linda never said that.

quote : I mean absolutely no disrespect towards Linda as some may think.
She did not research as deeply as I have, nor as long. If she had done so, and produced any long Lexigrams (and without errors) she would have changed some of her rules I believe, being she was not an ignorant person.

I mean absolutely no disrespect towards LEXX, and I agree that certainly Linda was not perfect, but she had reasons for her rules which she clearly explained ... and they make much sense. Perhaps we should study them more closely. I think we have lost sight of what Linda was teaching us about Lexigramming.

posted February 11, 2009 02:27 PM            

quote:

---

YIVY's Lexigram needs no improvement.

---

quote:

---

I agree that certainly Linda was not perfect, but she had reasons for her rules which she clearly explained ... and they make much sense.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps we should study them more closely.

---

quote:

---

I think we have lost sight of what Linda was teaching us about Lexigramming.

---

posted February 11, 2009 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

Neither should you blindly accept, on your quest for truth, the validity of the star sign codes of the Universe I offer in this book-until you have practiced and carefully tested each one, so that you can decide for yourself rather than take my word for it.

---

quote:

---

However, I do not ask-nor do I even expect-any of you to regard my concepts as your truth, unless they should happen to agree with your own personal enlightenment and private convictions.

---

quote:

---

But real Truth can be found in one place only-in every man's and woman's communion with an eternal Source of hidden Knowledge within-which each individual must seek and find for himself or herself.

---

I do not believe that Linda had intended for any of us to set her up high upon a pedestal and worship her blindly nor even agree with her or follow her way, her path.

Many others have said similar as she did.

quote:

---

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it.
Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held.
Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books.
Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin.
Believe nothing just because someone else believes it.
Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
Buddha

---

quote:

---

"If the light is in one room, the only way to light up the other room is to open the door. The only way to discover new things is to open your mind."

~Allen Steble

---

quote:

---

"The goal of meditation is not knowledge, but an alteration of consciousness. The highest result is pure harmony, a simultaneous and equal cooperation of logical and intuitive thinking."

~The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama)

---

quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

quote:

---

Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

---

quote:

---

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.

William Drummond

---

posted February 11, 2009 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Sorry..but I must disagree...adding ALL the vowels does NOT give one ALL THE WORDS in ANY dictionary.

---

quote:

---

Linda never said that.

---

quote:

---

4. The reason for Rules 2 and 3 is that, if an original word, name or phrase contains five vowels and more than fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet, you could form just about every word in the dictionary, and your Lexigram won't reveal anything personal or reliable.

---

quote:

---

you could form just about every word in the dictionary,

---

quote:

---

and your Lexigram won't reveal anything personal or reliable.

---

quote:

---

if an original word, name or phrase contains five vowels and more than fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet,

---

quote:

---

you could form just about every word in the dictionary,

---

quote:

---

....and your Lexigram won't reveal anything personal or reliable.

---

posted February 12, 2009 01:50 AM            

That reads quite clearly to me like she said "both" elements must be present to justify her rules on vowels and letters.

That is precisely what I was saying. Linda never said ...

adding ALL the vowels does NOT give one ALL THE WORDS in ANY dictionary.

... as you were asserting. Randall's name does not contain fifteen separate and different letters, as Linda said were also a factor. You quoted her yourself ...

The reason for Rules 2 and 3 is that, if an original word, name or phrase contains five vowels and more than fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet, you could form just about every word in the dictionary, and your Lexigram won't reveal anything personal or reliable.

And then you go on to explain what I said quite well.

The word "eunoia" contains all of the vowels, but it is quite clear that "all the words in any dictionary", as you stated, are hardly represented.

Linda said "you could form just about every word in the dictionary". This is quite clearly different than "all the words in any dictionary", as you stated. And she was speaking in generalized terms, like a figure of speach. "Just about every ... " is a figure of speach which means "a whole bunch".

You didn't mention anything about the necessity for "fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet" as Linda stated. That's kind of important.

Does that make sense?

What you were saying Linda said, Linda did not say.

posted February 12, 2009 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

Well, you explained my point very well in your last statement. When you said ...

That reads quite clearly to me like she said "both" elements must be present to
justify her rules on vowels and letters.

---

quote:

---

That is precisely what I was saying. Linda never said ...

adding ALL the vowels does NOT give one ALL THE WORDS in ANY dictionary.

---

quote:

---

... as you were asserting. Randall's name does not contain fifteen separate and different letters,
as Linda said were also a factor. You quoted her yourself ...

The reason for Rules 2 and 3 is that, if an original word, name or phrase contains five vowels
and more than fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet,
you could form just about every word in the dictionary,
and your Lexigram won't reveal anything personal or reliable.

---

quote:

---

if an original word, name or phrase contains five vowels and more than fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet.....

---

Rule #2 excerpt:

quote:

---

The word, name or phrase you are lexigramming may not contain more than four of the five vowels (a-e-i-o-u).......

---

I only agree with Rule #1 and part of Rule #5.
And here is a little Lexigram of Randall's name....
which has 11 different letters and all 5 vowels which is allowed under rule#4 but not rule#2.

So.....I feel that lexigram for example proves this bit from rule #2 is not valid nor logical.

quote:

---

If the original word, name or phrase contains five vowels, it does not want to be lexigrammed,
and is too complex to allow you to learn anything from it.

---

Just because she did not have the skill to Lexigram such a name as Randall's,. containing all 5 vowels,
does not mean she was right. I feel she was (unintentionally perhaps) making excuses
to not work on what she PERSONALLY not logically deemed as being too complex a name.
And, I have personally seem much more complex names which do not have all 5 vowels.

And sorry, but the line about a name "not wanting" to be lexigrammed is not a logic call
but an opinion and a belief, not a logic call.
A name has no wants or desires no matter how much fantasy concepts are applied to it.
I am not going to get into the dynamics of why it is not true here..but shall go into that issue in depth later.

posted February 12, 2009 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

And then you go on to explain what I said quite well.

The word "eunoia" contains all of the vowels, but it is quite clear that "all the words in any dictionary"

---

quote:

---

as you stated, are hardly represented.

---

quote:

---

Linda said "you could form just about every word in the dictionary".
This is quite clearly different than "all the words in any dictionary", as you stated.
And she was speaking in generalized terms, like a figure of speach.
"Just about every ... " is a figure of speach which means "a whole bunch".

---

quote:

---

"you could form just about every word in the dictionary".

---

quote:

---

"all the words in any dictionary"

---

quote:

---

You didn't mention anything about the necessity for "fifteen separate and different letters of the alphabet" as Linda stated.
That's kind of important.

---

quote:

---

Does that make sense?

---

quote:

---

What you were saying Linda said, Linda did not say.

---

posted February 12, 2009 10:45 AM            

I agree that certainly Linda was not perfect, but she had reasons for her rules which she clearly explained ... and they make much sense.

... and you said

I have heard that argument repeatedly yet no one has yet to fully back it up.

If so many have repeatedly said this to you, then perhaps we understand Linda differently, perhaps there is something about what she wrote that you are not understanding.

What Linda wrote is there for all to see, and you have obviously read her words, so there is nothing I can say to add or explain them further.

We simply have a different understanding of what Linda wrote. Do as you will, as you have. It is always good to have different perspectives. However, as you have "invalidated" so many of the Lexigrams by others in this forum, I reserve the right to invalidate yours, as per Linda's rules, because this website is dedicated to Linda and what she taught and our perception of her teachings and thoughts.

Place her upon a pedestal? Yeah, maybe a little, but knowing also that she was not perfect. After all, this is Linda-Goodman.com.

posted February 13, 2009 01:52 AM            

I think I am being a bit over defensive of YIVY, who displays the spirit of Linda's methods in a magical way. She speaks of the word druids, and she writes with a special energy, and she isn't perfect but she tries to maintain the basic rules that Linda mapped out, and she is very good at it. She is proof of the magic of the method.

Miss ya YIVY!

posted February 13, 2009 08:09 AM            

And I do understand Linda's method, but there are contradictions and yes she broke her own rules...so no wonder others do likewise.
That is not an insult nor being disrespectful to Linda or others, only pointing out the obvious provable facts of the matter.
I am allowed to post here and have my say.
If you do not like it then take it up with Randall.
And remember these rules for this site:

quote:

---

Linda loved debate, so in her memory we do encourage debates.
You are free to speak your Minds about anything, but please, use no profanity or personal insults.

---

quote:

---

Linda was adamantly opposed to the medical theocracy and, in some cases,
organized religion, and here in Lindaland we shall continue her legacy in those regards.
As a Ram, Linda had a fiery passion for her beliefs, and we do encourage others here to do likewise.
There will be no censorship here, and freedom of expression and speech rules supreme,
but please be courteous and respectful of others while doing so.
Linda had a talent for speaking her Mind without offending others. Let's try to do likewise.
She was very opinionated, and when we debate with each other in a loving manner, we do her name justice

---