Essence of Winter
This debate is one that's worth keeping alive. I've considered what a "purist" approach to TdM would amount to, and it seems that those who have set out to "decode" it without reference to other systems of thought are striving mightily to make something out of "whole cloth" that doesn't seem to have any kind of "first principles" philosophical basis. (If I understand the history correctly, the "pip" cards came from a game-playing paradigm, not a contemplative or divinational one.) I've come to call it the "deconstructionist" approach because every little nuance in the imagery appears to have been given interpretive significance of some sort.
It's a worthy debate but I am not convinced that a thread started by someone asking for assistance with learning was the appropriate place to initiate it as it is only likely to add to their confusion.
Personally, I take my cue from what Crowley and Frieda Harris did: take what are essentially "naked" pip cards and breathe life into them through use of various forms of symbolism (color, element, decan, number, etc.) along with a creative presentation of the "suit" emblems to achieve something more susceptible to interpretation that really doesn't fall all that far from the "TdM tree." These "semi-illustrated" pips definitely reveal their roots when you lay them out next to their TdM counterparts. I don't see that the RWS model came anywhere close to that remarkable achievement. Since there is no comprehensive historical foundation for pip card meanings, Crowley's approach seems as legitimate as any.
When it comes to the Tarot, it's difficult to say that anything is not legitimate as divination does not appear to have been the original intention behind the cards. I just don't see the point in doggedly pushing one system and making assumptions about why people might try something else. It really wasn't constructive.