As in the other threads that deal with endorsements and certification, whether it be TABI or TCB or its equivalents, it is not whether the mutual support, the promotion of tarot, or the value of courses is in any way being questioned.
Quite the contrary. And from my perspective, the mutual support that readers give each other within TABI, and the various courses that numerous people offer (whether or not under the auspices of
any association, society, or other organisation), are all positive.
Also, the
path taken by TABI with its endorsement and certificates is (in this case at least) paved with good
intentions. This is not at issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Nor, even, is the commercial result the problem. One can also increase part of one's exposure by reading for other organisations.
The issue is far more straightforward.
What does endorsement and certification suggest to the public, a public that is increasingly used to, and subjected, to having every aspect of their lives regulated? It suggests that tarot readings
can be regulated by having 'appropriate' certification.
Yet, I would suggest,
no such appropriate certification exists!
It is in that sense that Major Tom, if I am reading his posts correctly, similarly suggests that TABI is doing harm. It is, as any and every other organisation that provides certification also does, promulgates publically a view that readings can indeed be certified.
I do not rely on my income from readings, and the few readings I do (over the past few years) have been, in the main, for fundraisings. It is not a commercial concern of competition (and in any case, would either flourish of sink rather quickly on my own reputation).
Again, this is not arguing against courses, mutual support (ie, 'mentors'), or indeed even against TABI organising events to which only its members are reading. Rather, it is the concept of endorsement and certification, as it is these that perpetuate misrepresentations of tarot readings - misrepresentations more insiduous than the flagrant misrepresentation of charlatans, for these latter can easily be seen for what they are (even if only after the fact).
As to ribbitcat's comment regarding whether we can all agree on a generalised statement (even if at first view 'obvious'), I beg to differ on the two thus far presented.
The first of these related to a series of cards that included ribbitcat's suggestion that one could
not interpret it in a presented manner (that I answered by showing how one
could indeed see it in the manner suggested: see post 21 in the thread
UK Article link - in fact, I would recommend another reading of THAT whole thread too!).
Above, ribbitcat suggests that, and I quote:
"who would not agree that to tell a querent that they're going to die within the next three months (say) is unacceptable ?"
I would honestly say that it entirely depends on the situation at hand, and the manner in which it arises and is discussed. Something that no code can ever capture!