have realised the error of my ethics.

Abigail you certainly have some very intense views on this topic don't you? On the other thread you said you couldn't be a part of this forum because people had different ethical standards and here you seem to be comparing people who read about other people as abusive, machiavellian psychic tyrants. Isn't that a little extreme?

I totally support your right to read however you wish and to never do anything with tarot you feel is inappropriate but why does that give you the right to to look down your nose at the rest of us? Since I am a person who has done readings on people who were not present (usually I was dating them) all of your comments about "sticking your nose into other people's business" are really rather insulting. I don't cast aspersions onto your reading choices, maybe you could respect mine.

Dear Abigail,
I have had all day to ruminate upon your thread and decide whether I was going to reply to it. This is my take. You freely admitted that you had 'spat the dummy' in the previous thread about ethics. You then gave us your graphic post as to why you 'spat the dummy'; and it was very clear to me that instant reaction of the affront you felt and the desire to leave the forum, was reconsidered- hence this thread. For that I am pleased.
I have done a spit myself before about something I was passionate about; and in my anger came close to creating major offence to others to make a point. What I realised was -that I would never know if my views were understood, or even really cared about. One can only state their own ethics and hope the lit candle would affect someone and they would take it on board. So I reconsidered feeling that the opinions here gave me more insight than lack and I could see others candles and share my own. You have a wonderful personal charter to use for what at times must be a burden of psychic awareness. I thank you for sharing it. I do not read for a third party and follow most of your charter myself. I came to that decision following a series of events in the small town I live in. One of the reasons I have stopped reading here (my town) is that I became too aware of other peoples lives here and all that was happening within them. I am very conscious of the fact that we are all connected and the lines can become blurred in the questioners mind, when they are navigating their lives. The constant use of Tarot is ethic lessons in itself, and taken to heart will enevitably bring us to good sound life choices and personal charters that we can apply. We can do no more than that- to the best of our abilities. What the forum does for me is give me other views to consider and incorporate (or not), wash away areas of ignorance, and keep me in touch with people who are passionate about Tarot in all its diversity. ~Rosanne

Cultural Clarifier -

What does 'spat the dummy' mean?

I don't think we do that in Canada.
I could be wrong.

Shade said:

Abigail you certainly have some very intense views on this topic don't you? On the other thread you said you couldn't be a part of this forum because people had different ethical standards and here you seem to be comparing people who read about other people as abusive, machiavellian psychic tyrants. Isn't that a little extreme?

Click to expand...

I didn't feel this with the first thread at all. I thought it was a matter of Abigail, a fairly new member who was still looking through the forum, as you do with a book you think of buying, realising that it isn't what she thought, and it isn't the place for her. That doesn't necessarily mean she was leaving just because of different ethical standards, more that she was leaving because the way she sees things meant that the kind of disussions we have here weren't "her thing".

I still felt some of the responses were OTT, as I did when I was told (more kindly) that I was nuts to say not without permission. I like her guidelines; I like the line sharpchick used "Nothing about me without me. I especially like what Rosanne says; that is precisely why the whole thing bothered me.

I do think the first post in this thread was harsh; I also think it was a spoof, and satire is often very harsh. Being as I have a weird sense of humour, it also made me laugh, which is why I feel so sure it was satire - I feel sure that if I had detected the slightest hint that she meant it I would have worried a bit (not for myself, for the forum My wicked past is almost all on the forum somewhere already ! .)

But I do also feel that this forum as a whole is harder on people who say only with consent than it is on those who say otherwise. Spitting the dummy is something we have all done (don't look for mine; it was modded out !) - including a fellow Canadian, here; I've done it in Ontario for sure ! - let's live with it and discuss the issue rather than Abigail ! The post she did has certainly stimulated a lively discussion partly because it was polemical. Not so bad then !

hehe- 'to spit the dummy' is to do what kids do when they object to something- they spit out the oral pacifer(dummy) and throw a hissy fit because of genuinely felt emotions. Somehow its as if the dummy tasted real bad for a second or two, and they need to tell you ~Rosanne

gregory said:

I do think the first post in this thread was harsh; I also think it was a spoof,

Click to expand...

I'm certain it was a spoof and that's why the parts about exposing adulterers on AT didn't bother me at all. It was the many refeernces to sticking noses where they don't belong that bothers me and that part I think she meant.

gregory said:

But I do also feel that this forum as a whole is harder on people who say only with consent than it is on those who say otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'm not so certain... counting the replies, I have seen a lot more people say they feel it is unethical to do readings for someone without their permission. Most are not in any way judgmental. I don't think I have seen anyone say it is wrong not to read for people without their permission.

Hmm...

I kept out of these issues after one of my posts was also misinterpreted a long time ago. I was said to be 'harsh'.

I wrote down my code of ethics and I keep to it. Not on a case by case basis. Sorry. I don't want to slip into the grey area's and there are enough alternatives that I do accept. Namely, rule 2.

1) I do not read about other people without permission. This includes Relationship Readings. If you want one, then it's going to be focussed on you. Since partners mirror each other, (one becomes independent, the other becomes needy), these are still very worthwhile Readings. The focus is always on the Querent.

In select cases, rule 2 counts.
2) I'm ok with doing Readings that focus on the Querent, and what they need to know about somebody else. As in: "What do *I* need to know about person X".

Why I have these rules? Simple. I heard these reasons that I don't agree with:

"It's all about intent... If you have good intent, nothing can go wrong"
Sorry. But the best intentions can be the road to hell. We don't know what is the best for another person. And we can be open to receiving information we do not know how to deal with. (how an operation is going to be for example). People's curiousity is bigger then their wisdom.

"It depends on what you do with the information"
Surely it does. But if you do Readings in which the intent is not to receive 'open' information but you ask: "What is this persons' plan with the Group" then, there is a huge huge chance of misinterpretation, because your intent is already finding out something bad/negative.

"You can't do Readings that don't touch more then one person life"
True in a way. We are all connected to others. But surely there is a HUGE difference between focusing on one person, and focusing on a group or more. One Reading will give radical different information then another.

"It's the only way I can know what is on X's mind"
This one I heard a lot. Be it with grandchildren, family, friends. First of all, this person is abnormally closed, else you wouldn't have to do a Reading on them. Don't you think it's better in the long run to ACTUALLY talk to this person about this behaviour, and confront them again and again... Till they will see what they are causing? Instead of opting on the 'easy' way out, trying to find out information behind their back...

"Tarot Readings give information in a way that is different then getting any information anywhere else"
So... it's this little special way, so that way it doesn't fall under 'normal' rules. It doesn't fall under 'spying' because it's different... A smart way of getting what you want. I do not believe this personally. I believe that Reading on others without permission is like tapping their phone, spying, being under their window etc. etc. This is my Belief. It doesn't have to be yours.

Yes. I'm against Reading on somebody without permission, and in only a few exceptions I will allow it, then following rule 2. Asking for open information, and then you will see what your receive. I only do this when the Querent can explain to me very well, why this wish this open information.

I do believe that Tarot Readings come from the Divine, but God gave us free will, and therefore we are capable of making wrong decisions...

As a clairvoyant/medium I do have problems with the fact that I 'tune' into people without wanting too. I do nothing with this information. I'm practising every day to keep this under control. I do not wish to see people's aura's without permission, to get visions, energy Readings or anything else that I can do. The problem is that I'm incredibly sensitive. I still agonise about it every day.

Kahlie

I'm going to have to pitch my lot in with the "She must have been sarcastic" lot.

I take my personal space exceptionally seriously. My little bit of the universe, my mind, is mine alone to share. I have had people Dream about me and it always leaves me a little un-nerved, but that's not an intentional thing. They're not violating my privacy, I'm not bothered by it.

I've had two people read about me without my permission.

One of whom is a solipsist (believes the Universe is a function of his imagination created to keep him entertained) and so, since I don't exist, I gave him a nose bleed (partly because he told me I don't exist and partly becuse he violated my rights).

The second justified it to themselves by saying they thought I was an unsavoury influence on their brother, a friend of mine. Now, I openly admitted to the family of this friend that I was gay, that I had NO interests in him and that we were just good friends (all of which was true at the time {we don't talk any more. Unfortunately, this girl is a fluffy wiccan of the worst kind ($ilver ravenwolf is her personal God) and no amount of ethical discussion would get it through her head that she was violating my rights. The reading was uncannily bad though. She couldn't get a read on me which leads me to believe that the shielding technique I picked up after incident one worked really well or she's a really poor reader.

Regardless, personal experience would lead me to believe that no amount of moral justification will work for me. I have put up a block on this door that I would never be comfortable removing.

Kahlie said:

Hmm...

I kept out of these issues after one of my posts was also misinterpreted a long time ago. I was said to be 'harsh'.

I wrote down my code of ethics and I keep to it. Not on a case by case basis. Sorry. I don't want to slip into the grey area's and there are enough alternatives that I do accept. Namely, rule 2.

1) I do not read about other people without permission. This includes Relationship Readings. If you want one, then it's going to be focussed on you. Since partners mirror each other, (one becomes independent, the other becomes needy), these are still very worthwhile Readings. The focus is always on the Querent.

In select cases, rule 2 counts.
2) I'm ok with doing Readings that focus on the Querent, and what they need to know about somebody else. As in: "What do *I* need to know about person X".

Click to expand...

Thank you for this post Kahlie. You have articulated extremely well what I was taught (by Mary Greer and Rachel Pollack) and what has proven for me to be a positive and sustainable approach to Tarot when I read for others. Others will follow the path that best suits them. We are individuals not animals with a herd mentality.

This thread is not about being right or wrong, I should hope, but rather about thinking carefully and thoroughly about the paths we choose to tread.

I am enjoying this (quite lively) exchange of ideas!

weaver

weaver said:

Thank you for this post Kahlie. You have articulated extremely well what I was taught (by Mary Greer and Rachel Pollack) and what has proven for me to be a positive and sustainable approach to Tarot when I read for others. Others will follow the path that best suits them. We are individuals not animals with a herd mentality.

This thread is not about being right or wrong, I should hope, but rather about thinking carefully and thoroughly about the paths we choose to tread.

I am enjoying this (quite lively) exchange of ideas!

weaver

Click to expand...

Hey Weaver,

I'm surprised to hear it. I usually keep out of these discussions because of the fact people find me harsh for some reason.

I always thought I was following a path that nobody else was following because of that. Nice to hear that there are fellows

Kahlie