Debra
I get it. You're saying that people who do these things you don't like are unkind, incompetent, harmful voyeurs. (Worst possible motives.) Also I am arrogant for disagreeing. Can you see at all where I and others who commented are coming from?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Icky feeling when potential Readers suss out your previous questions?
I get it. You're saying that people who do these things you don't like are unkind, incompetent, harmful voyeurs. (Worst possible motives.) Also I am arrogant for disagreeing. Can you see at all where I and others who commented are coming from?
gregory
This is a public forum. No-one has to post here if they want a private reading.G6's idea of making post histories private would be a good solution for people who are uncomfortable with having publicly shared readings.
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by "hiding post history" - if it's a matter of not being able to go to a profile and "see other posts" I would be very much against this; the number of times I know who posted some important thing I need but can't remember what thread it was in are legion (and I don't mean readings).
As for looking at YR and REx - you cannot fail to see who posted/started a thread - and that absolutely should not change. So when you can see all down the page the same name with a thread asking the same question, you cannot fail to get the idea.
think
Deleted.
I regret joining in in this thread, so much bashing and mean spirited responses. Where is the love, guys?
I regret joining in in this thread, so much bashing and mean spirited responses. Where is the love, guys?
Bonny
Bonny, this is a public forum.. It is not stalking if you read someone's posts every day, that's the nature of posting on and reading a forum.
People are quite within their rights to refuse to read for someone if that person has asked the same question of other readers time and time again.. I don't post in the Reading Exchange and frankly, people doing this is one of the reasons that I don't.. It's meant to be a learning forum, not an agony aunt forum where you come to get readings, we're all supposed to be learning..
Thanks Sulis,
This is a forum, but we are all in a context we call humanity.
Whether it us 'public' or not doesn't mean the Sitter should be treated as an object.
They and their questions are human processes deserving of respect.
It's this outlook of 'agony aunt' profiling that does most damage.
I have the 'right' to many things that ethically I would not do because my sense of regard for other Beings precludes me from advancing such freedoms.
Why? Because I get that icky feeling if I take from someone else's energy field by tracking them without their knowing or slamming them in front of others on an international forum.
Bonny
I get it. You're saying that people who do these things you don't like are unkind, incompetent, harmful voyeurs. (Worst possible motives.) Also I am arrogant for disagreeing. Can you see at all where I and others who commented are coming from?
No, I didn't say they are incompetent.
Of course I see your logic and I am saying it is faulty. Hence the thread.
I don't have time to appease your want of acknowledgement by mirroring back to you that I understand your logic.
I said that those who presume a repeat Sitter or questioner wants a particular answer is arrogant.
Best to stay clear so as not to cause misunderstandings/harm.
Lee
I think it bears repeating that the rules in the reading forums state that the reader can choose to grant a reading request, or choose not to. They're totally free to choose not to. Readers who choose not to read for someone are allowed to post a reason, but that's entirely optional. They can also choose to simply ignore the request.Of course it's all good to decline to read for a sitter, but not on the basis of having read through their previous sensitive dialogues with other Readers; then pitching value judgements that are really quite harmful.
Therefore I believe it's wrong to state that a reader should not refuse a request for particular reasons. The rules state the request can be refused at the reader's whim, for any reason at all.
CrystalSeas
Of course it's all good to decline to read for a sitter, but not on the basis of..........
Just a reminder: In the Reading Exchange you can decline to read for a sitter on ANY basis you choose. You don't even have to give a reason.
There is not a list of acceptable reasons for declining a sitter, and all other sitters must be accommodated. You may refuse for any reason at all, and there is no need to explain your decision.
You use whatever information and intuition that works for you to make that decision.
gregory
I would say your logic was as faulty as you believe debra's to be. Every situation is different; every reader's ethics are different. To each their own. Peace, out.No, I didn't say they are incompetent.
Of course I see your logic and I am saying it is faulty. Hence the thread.
I don't have time to appease your want of acknowledgement by mirroring back to you that I understand your logic.
I said that those who presume a repeat Sitter or questioner wants a particular answer is arrogant.
Best to stay clear so as not to cause misunderstandings/harm.
Barleywine
I have a pretty good memory and I quickly get a sense of who is "beating a dead horse" without having to mine old threads. I don't participate in exchanges because I would rather have people pull their own cards and I'm not really looking for reciprocation or feedback (you might call it a "categorical refusal"), so I'm kind of on the sidelines here.
Debra
It's upsetting to hear people who choose not to read for someone insulted as coldhearted voyeurs who should be banned.
