how do you approach reading about public figures/events?

[gregory]

Because it's good practice in learning to read the cards, and if you're lucky, you'll eventually find out if you reading was accurate.

You can find out later if the reading was accurate (whatever that means) by reading for someone you know who is OK with it. You can even do that here. Try it, you might like it

If someone comes to you for a reading on a problem they are having in their love relationship, how can you not take the 3rd party into account? How could that even be possible, since they are two people in the relationship, one of them sitting in front of you? It's not like she can control everything in the relationship, or be the only one responsible to make changes to make the problem go away. If a reader will only do a reading considering her point of view, why bother getting a reading? She already knows her side of the story. She wants insight and more information than she already has, and won't or can't get from her partner.

I would be focusing on what SHE could do to change things. Yes, facets of the partner might show up, but she can only change herself; she can only control herself. She can't change him. And she isn't responsible for who he is.

What's the point of going to a reader if not to get more information that I currently have?

To get a different view of it, a dispassionate view, that may help you see more clearly.

If I suspect my partner is cheating on me, don't I have a right to know if he is or not?

Actually - and this is a whole different question - no, you don't have a RIGHT to know. No-one has a RIGHT to know anything about anyone, with the possible exception of DNA testing to establish who the father of a child is. Relationships aren't built on rights. If someone believes their partner is cheating - ask; if you didn't trust the answer you got, then you have to decide what you are prepared to do now.

I would consider it a poor reading indeed if the reader told me that she would only focus on me to protect my partner's feelings and privacy. What good would that do? It would leave me with the same information I had before. There are only two possible answers here, either he's cheating, or it's in my imagination and he's not cheating. There's no way the Tarot could provide a useful answer without taking the partner into consideration.

Only up to a point. What you need to know when you go for a reading is what you need to do. The tarot might not actually answer. What you need to do - if you have to know - is hire a PI. The tarot isn't a detective agency. It is more than that.

 

[Nemia]

Gregory, you wrote it perfectly. Absolutely perfectly. Bravo. No, tarot is NOT a PI, and if someone believes his/her partner is cheating, of course they have the right to know it. But why use tarot cards for it? Ask your partner, ask yourself, ask your friends. And then ask the tarot how to fix what is wrong in the relationship.

If you feel strongly your partner is cheating on you, the cards may pick up this feeling and you will anyway interpret them any way you want to. IMO it's not only inappropriate, it's short sighted to use the cards for such investigations. Especially since people eaten by jealousy have the habit of asking the same question again and again. How can the cards give a coherent answer when used that way?

Use the cards for self reflection and healing and future tendencies - don't use them to spy on others instead of talking to them.

 

[DownUnderNZer]

Celebrity Rights can be argued both ways and if googled there is a decent amount of info available.

LINK: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=celebrity+privacy+rights

A few things and not limited to...

"CELEBRITY RIGHTS TO PRIVACY".

USA:

1. Is the taking of a photo protected free speech?

Restricting the publication of photos will be quite difficult under the First Amendment, as the publication of photos is protected speech in many cases.

United States law is often dismissive of finding any privacy rights in public places.

5. Should celebrities have a right to privacy?

.....celebrities don't really consent to losing their privacy. That gives it a false sense of legitimacy. There's no contract that says that in order to be famous one has to surrender privacy. Why should being harassed or gossiped about be considered a legitimate job requirement? The fact that some celebrities make a lot of money does not legitimize it either.

Some argue that we learn from celebrity gossip -- it presents us with a way to....


BBC:

But how much privacy can, and should, celebrities - who make their living in the public eye - expect?

For years, the tabloid press has made its reputation on "exclusives" involving celebrities' private lives.

Stars frequently take out injunctions against newspapers preventing them from revealing possible indiscretions.
.......

Yet the relationship between celebrities and the media is such that, arguably, one cannot exist without the other.

'Delicate balance'

Jeremy King, editor of industry paper Media Week, says that although celebrities are in the public eye, it does not necessarily make them "fair game".

"It's a delicate balance between celebrities from the Y-list up to the D-list, who are quite happy to reveal their inner secrets, and the A- and B-list, who go about their business and guard their private lives.

"People are happily hacking to get exclusives from A-listers because they're slightly unusual.

"But if you court the media in the first place and don't like it when they say something nasty, then unfortunately once you push the toothpaste out of the tube it's hard to get it back in."

According to media commentator Mark Borkowski, celebrities need to realise that to a certain extent they are public property.

Despite this, he continues, it can still be possible for them to have a private life.

"If you want privacy, you can obtain it by keeping a delicate balance between the needs of promoting what you have to professionally - and how you conduct your life," he explains.
"You need to have a long-term commitment to the amount of fame you have generated.
"You can't switch it on and off, so you have to have a strategy of dealing with it."

Protection

The role of the PR machine is a key player in the issue.
On the one hand, a publicist may tip off the media as to their clients' whereabouts or promote their latest project.

On the other, a PR could be working hard to limit the damage after an unfavourable story.

Celebrity PR consultant Max Clifford says the biggest part of his business is protecting the image of his clients, not promotion.

"If I have a star on my books that has always desperately kept themselves private, then they deserve greater protection," he says.

The incessant need of the public to know what every celebrity is doing is phenomenal
Jeremy King, Media Week. "[But] if you use the media, you can't complain too much when the media uses you."


MY THOUGHTS:

It works both ways.

If Celebrities did not have the Media to promote themselves then they would not be famous or known, so in that respect, they avail themselves to less privacy whether they consent or not.

But it is not anyone's business what happens behind close doors - whether Media, family, friend, or a reader.

However, I reckon if the Media puts something out there first would it be so wrong for someone to follow up on that story (or not) with a reading? It is not like it would be going LIVE on TV or anything and as long as it is not defaming anyone or being vindictive is there really any harm.

It is just like some readers doing Tarot on OJ Simpson after the fact and years on.

There is a fine line and it is all about a person using her/his head. Good judgement.



DND

 

[gregory]

I don't actually believe they have a RIGHT to know, I really don't. I would not want to be in a relationship where I wasn't told - but I don't think I have a RIGHT to know. We are all entitled to privacy - I would hate to be with someone who used that right to cheat on me, and I suppose the closest I would get would be that if I am to be in a relationship, honesty would be a condition of that relationship. But - rights aren't a THING until the legal rights involved in divorce, when the day comes. I am a bit tired of the entitlement culture everywhere, where we are deemed to have rights of all sorts.

Rights have no place in relationships. Trust and honesty do.

 

[Nemia]

Even if a celebrity is hungry for media attention, even intrusion - he/she may change their mind later, and their children and friends did NOT ask for that attention. I think it's absolutely shameless how children of stars are being hunted.

I remember the pictures of Tom Cruise's little daughter - even if you didn't want to know about it, they were everywhere. That poor little girl. As long as people demand that kind of intrusion as fodder for their curiosity, paparazzi will demand it. And damage young children.

And the royal families? They didn't choose it. It may have its perks but they didn't choose to live that way, and we should respect their need for private retreats. They're on show so often anyway. I gave the example of Prince Harry - he didn't ask for it, he asked for the public to back off, and we should respect that.

Besides: I find the attention-hunger of many so-called celebrities repulsive and will not support it by taking any place in it. IMO this whole paparazzi thing and the tmi about completely shallow people is crazy, and we could all spend our energy and resources on much better things. I see my teenage daughter watching all kinds of bullshit programs with her friends, they're so influenced by it, looks are central, pouty lips, lives focused on consuming status symbols, NEVER a discussion that doesn't center on personal matters or money - and I say NO to that circus. It's basically gossip and IMO gossip is evil.

Everybody can practice tarot the way he/she sees fit but that's my opinion and I stand by it.

 

[gregory]

I'm more interested in actors (in particular) who very often do NOT crave attention - it's their job, and if they didn't do it we'd have nothing to watch on stage or screen. I recall, for instance, Sheila Hancock - wife of John Thaw - and they separated. Both of them were harassed over and over by the media. Neither would talk - so the media speculated. Affairs ? Whose ? Violence ?

And what it was was that she had been diagnosed with cancer and needed to be alone to cope. Was ALL. Judi Dench was stalked all over the place for a "statement" about her "feelings" when her husband died. Whose business is it but hers ?

And I have just found a whole website of actors who "keep denying that they are gay" - well, again - whose business is it. But I'll bet some "tarot reader" (quotes intentional) would be happy to ask the cards. Ugh.

Celebrities do NOT all crave publicity; some jobs put you in the public eye, but that does not make you public property. Or make you fair game for readers to practise reading on you.

 

[blueeyetea]

You can find out later if the reading was accurate (whatever that means) by reading for someone you know who is OK with it. You can even do that here. Try it, you might like it

A computer is not always available, and it's more convenient to grab a magazine or newspaper lying around to get ideas to practice.

I would be focusing on what SHE could do to change things. Yes, facets of the partner might show up, but she can only change herself; she can only control herself. She can't change him. And she isn't responsible for who he is.

She isn't responsible for who he is, but she's affected by his actions. With every interaction, she has a decision to make in how to proceed, taking into her account her feelings and his, and possible consequences. It takes two people for a relationship to work, and putting all the responsibility on her to change is very one sided and naive. Might as well just say it's her fault and call it a day, because that's the information you're giving.

To get a different view of it, a dispassionate view, that may help you see more clearly.

Relationships aren't built on rights. If someone believes their partner is cheating - ask; if you didn't trust the answer you got, then you have to decide what you are prepared to do now.

If all the querent had to do was ask their partner, they wouldn't need a tarot reading. Cheating partners have been known to lie when cornered and have a lot to lose to be found out.

Did you ever hear stories of businessmen hiring translators when working abroad even though they were fluent in the language? It's a way for them to forearm themselves against any swindle and corruption. It's the same way with getting a tarot reading on a situation, she'll get information that will either deny or corroborate her initial impressions, and she can modify her behaviour accordingly. You're only addressing the behaviour part, with being blind to the situation as a whole.

If we go back to the cheating partner, if he's cheating and the reader refuses to say, the querent can't turn around and look for more evidence before confronting her partner, for example. If the reader refuses to add her partner to the question, and he's not cheating, the reader is not helping her client on the path of finding out why she things that way.

Only up to a point. What you need to know when you go for a reading is what you need to do. The tarot might not actually answer. What you need to do - if you have to know - is hire a PI. The tarot isn't a detective agency. It is more than that.

"Tarot is more than that". No it's not. Tarot readers are primarily advisors. Some even consider themselves therapists, but that's another discussion entirely.

If a reading is to find out what you need to do, you need to have a defined problem to start with. A tarot reading is another tool to define that problem, then followed by advice on how to proceed, and the possible fallout. A reader can't advise on how to proceed, if she refuses to find out what the problem is because a third party is involved. She also can't predict the fallout if she doesn't want to entertain the reaction of the 3rd party to the client's actions. The client is not living in a vacuum where everything she does affects only her. Her partner will have a reaction of some kind. I can't how a reading could be meaningful if so many important elements are missing from the equation. This would end up being a vague, if not useless, reading.

So, yeah, the client could hire a PI (or go see a therapist, or talk to her friends, or follow him around herself, or just ask him), but for some reason, she consults with a tarot reader instead. Make of it what you will, but with pulling the ethics card, the reader is judging the worthiness of her clients request and refusing her help, when she should be partial and objective. It's not her job to decide what her client should, or shouldn't know.

 

[blueeyetea]

Especially since people eaten by jealousy have the habit of asking the same question again and again. How can the cards give a coherent answer when used that way?

A good, talented, reader will see that jealousy in the cards as a problem of the reader and will advise her client accordingly. Why wouldn't the cards say so?

Use the cards for self reflection and healing and future tendencies - don't use them to spy on others instead of talking to them.

That's casting judgment on how people use tarot cards, and why they go for a reading. You call it spying. I'm calling it gathering information to make an informed decision.

 

[gregory]

It takes two people for a relationship to work, and putting all the responsibility on her to change is very one sided and naive. Might as well just say it's her fault and call it a day, because that's the information you're giving. [/quoet]
It's not her RESPONSIBILITY - but she is the only person SHE can change. She can't expect to change someone else.

If all the querent had to do was ask their partner, they wouldn't need a tarot reading. Cheating partners have been known to lie when cornered and have a lot to lose to be found out.

Of course. And if she can't trust his answer,. it is up to HER to decide what to do next.

And I would also remind you that readers who have done this kind of reading have been known to get them wrong - with disastrous results. Reader tells her yes he's cheating. She confronts him with this as FACT (which it isn't of course) and he still denies it. She says if he doesn't admit it they are done. He can't admit it because he didn't do it. So she dumps him. Charming.

Did you ever hear stories of businessmen hiring translators when working abroad even though they were fluent in the language? It's a way for them to forearm themselves against any swindle and corruption. It's the same way with getting a tarot reading on a situation, she'll get information that will either deny or corroborate her initial impressions, and she can modify her behaviour accordingly. You're only addressing the behaviour part, with being blind to the situation as a whole.

Corroborate or deny ? If only it were that cut and dried.

If we go back to the cheating partner, if he's cheating and the reader refuses to say, the querent can't turn around and look for more evidence before confronting her partner, for example. If the reader refuses to add her partner to the question, and he's not cheating, the reader is not helping her client on the path of finding out why she things that way.

She can - she can hire a PI. But if there is that little trust, the relationship is doomed anyway.

So, yeah, the client could hire a PI (or go see a therapist, or talk to her friends, or follow him around herself, or just ask him), but for some reason, she consults with a tarot reader instead. Make of it what you will, but with pulling the ethics card, the reader is judging the worthiness of her clients request and refusing her help, when she should be partial and objective. It's not her job to decide what her client should, or shouldn't know.

She is, more, judging what will best help her client. And she shodul be IMPARTIAL, not partial - I assume that's a typo ?

That's casting judgment on how people use tarot cards, and why they go for a reading. You call it spying. I'm calling it gathering information to make an informed decision.

It is indeed passing judgement. We each have our ethics, and something that you consider OK is something I happen to see as profoundly wrong. Just as you are judging my ethics.

To each their own. But celebrities didn't ask for your opinion or for information, did not invite you to speculate about them for your own reasons, will never hear what you say, and have the right to privacy. An far as I am concerned they are a totally closed book.

 

[blueeyetea]

However, I reckon if the Media puts something out there first would it be so wrong for someone to follow up on that story (or not) with a reading? It is not like it would be going LIVE on TV or anything and as long as it is not defaming anyone or being vindictive is there really any harm.
DND

This is exactly my take on it. The media has already put the information out there. I do a reading, make notes, and put it aside. If I was into writing a blog, I would have no problem with posting that information because it's nothing but my opinion of someone else. Everyone has them. It's human nature to think about other people, or we wouldn't have survived as a society if we didn't.