Dear Ann Landers, e have two sons. For almost three years my husband and I have wanted another child but we've had no luck. About a month ago my sister said she'd like to try the needle trick on me to determine whether or not I'd have more children. She took a threaded needle and rubbed it across my middle finger. Then she dangled the threaded needle over the top of my hand, steadying it between her thumb and index finger until it stood perfectly still. If the needle remained still it meant that I would not have any more children. If it moved back and forth it meant a boy. If it moved in circles it meant a girl. We tried it three times. Twice the needle moved back and forth, meaning I had two boys, which was right. The third time it stood still, indicating I would not have any more children. This past week six differ-ent women tried it on me, and the results were the same every time. I know this sounds nutty, but the accuracy of these tests is amazing. How do you explain it?-D.L.
Hi! It's Margo here. I'd love to know what you think of the letters -- and the answers!
Also, any additional thoughts you might have. Thanks!
Please share your comments below:
Our Reader to Reader Question of the Week:
Dear Readers, , I said: “To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say I’m with you. Like my predecessors, it is now my responsibility to do my ut-most to prevent such a war. No one feels more than I the need for peace.” It is indeed my highest priority to deter and prevent such a war, for its consequences would be disastrous for mankind. That is why I’ve called for negotiations leading to major arms re-ductions, not limitations that only codify high levels. Under the so- called limitations of SALT II the Soviet Union and the United States could substantially add to their nuclear arsenals. I have instead called for the reduction of the most destabilizing strategic elements, the ballistic missile warheads, by one-third in the first phase of negotiations on strategic arms reduction. In the area of intermediate-range nuclear forces, I have also proposed the elimina-tion of the most threatening systems, the land-based missiles. During the last decade, the United States restrained its deployment of new nuclear forces while the Soviet Union enormously increased its forces. We, therefore, now face a serious imbalance, which decreases the credibility of our deterrent. That is why we must modernize our own forces both to reduce the dangerous imbalance and to make clear to the Soviet leaders that they should join us in negotiating the kind of substantial, equal and verifi-able reductions in nuclear arms the world demands. Ann, we have tried many times since World War II to persuade the Russians to join us in reducing or even eliminating nuclear weapons, with little success. Perhaps, instead of sending copies to me, your read-ers should send copies of your May 17 column to President Brezhnev. Sincerely, -Ronald Reagan
