There was a wish: A new Forum

[gregory]

Then it is fair to call Gregory's complaint about "some" to be a baseless accusation.

I say it is not so, there is nobody in Historical Research who has ever stated their opinion to be "the way it was meant to be" and that "all others are wrong."

If they have, they must have been so quickly booed off the stage that it explains why I don't remember it.

However, it appears Gregory meant something more recent. It doesn't matter to me, but if we are allowed to complain that specific individuals have done something to hurt my feelings, but I'm not going to name them, then I have to say that some people here have hurt my feelings very badly as well.

Can we just get on with learning, or sharing information as the case may be, now?

I did not say recent (where does that "appear" to you ?) and I did not say my "feelings were hurt". People don't abandon attempts at discussion over hurt feelings (well, I don't. I bite. )
Nor did I complain that a specific individual did anything. I was very careful NOT to complain about a specific individual. And those people I know of who got fed up with being dismissed as worthless posters pretty much gave up posting in H&R.

I'm not trying to rake stuff up or flame, merely saying that people simply being told they were wrong, so go away, in effect, has happened, to me and to others, and it is one reason that H&R gets few visitors. So at this time of a potential change, it needs to be said and heard. And there is a feeling of them and us. Both among the regular contributors to H&R and the ones who (now) only stand and watch.

But I'm bored with all this now, you will be glad to hear.

 

[le pendu]

Mary, I'd like to know more about the rules for the different forums, especially what can be discussed, what can and can't be asked, and by whom?

In the Speculation forum, shall people just discuss their ideas, but no one is allowed to question whether there is any sort of evidence to lead to this speculation? Or are only certain people not allowed to ask questions? Which questions are okay, and which ones aren't? Is factual evidence allowed in the Speculation forum? Or should discussions occur in the Speculation forum until a fact is needed, and then switch to the Historical forum for an answer, and then perhaps back to Speculation again?

Since we are voting on another forum, I think it would be helpful if we were clearer on what the rules and differences between the forums would be.

Thanks!

 

[Teheuti]

I think we are all in agreement that name-calling is not allowed in this privately-owned forum. It is one reason why people can feel relatively comfortable about posting here. Sometimes people step over the line and need to be reminded or even told to take a time-out.

Because belief-based ideas and proof-via-reasoning or analogy (but without proof) don't mix well with evidence-based facts, it seems appropriate to separate the two. Also, the two sections will hopefully have a "Read This First" explanation at the top of each section that will clarify matters like "what is an historical theory" and "what is evidence" in the HR section.

Personally, I find that it's when I get upset by an attack or a demand for proof (that I have been too lazy to provide), that I do the necessary work to support my pov. I do a lot of research that I wouldn't otherwise have done. It's why I can spout off facts (I've built a Tarot timeline in my computer that I keep updating). Defending my perspective against a****s and a determination to prove them wrong or misguided has been the impetus to some of my most important work here and in my books. And, sometimes, I'm proved wrong - which only benefits me in the long run as I can then get rid of false impressions that only hurt my work.

When you get publically called to account for your mistakes, then you no longer have the luxury of spouting whatever nonsense you wish - or you can get used to standing up for your pov.

 

[le pendu]

When you get publically called to account for your mistakes, then you no longer have the luxury of spouting whatever nonsense you wish - or you can get used to standing up for your pov.

Exactly.

Unless you have the protection of a forum where the rules forbid you from being put in a position where you would have to.

 

[The crowned one]

Alternative time lines, the other histories.

 

[Penthasilia]

I have debated on whether to post- but I did vote for the additional forum, so I figured I would give my views on what I hope will be covered/included.

I love the historical forum. Though it may represent a small percentage of posts on ATF, for me it represents at least 90% of the knowledge that I have accrued while being here. I love having it available, and in no way would want the high standards that are kept in that forum decreased or diminished.

So what could a new forum add? I do like the idea of a soundboard, an area to pose the philosophical or esoteric questions in regard to the historical tarot decks. I think it would be lovely to have those active participants in the historical section participate as well- and this could only enrich the experience.

Another topic that I would love to see: the actual usage of the historical tarot decks that stands within the construct of both the historical and esoteric background of tarot. While not all historians may read/use tarot, it would be lovely to have an area where that gap could be bridged. An example for me would be the Etteilla decks; I have learned an extraordinary amount of information regarding this deck and its variants from the historical forum. Where there is a relative lack is in the actual usage of the cards- while keeping in thought and spirit the historical perspective from which it came. Having an area that could bridge the gap of usage for historical decks within this context would be lovely. I am thinking of Mel's old fashioned pips thread- which was fabulous!

I am very pleased that some of the individuals from the historical forum have been participating in this discussion and truly hope to see their fabulous work continue both in the historical forum, and in the new one if opened.

These are just my thoughts, but hopefully a sound resolution can be worked out that can expand participation while maintaining the high standard that has been set in the historical forum. I have recently grown to love and study the historical tarot- and appreciate the efforts of all who have contributed to AT and spent their own time and energy in improving the education of others.

 

[Mi-Shell]

I have debated on whether to post- but I did vote for the additional forum, so I figured I would give my views on what I hope will be covered/included.

I love the historical forum. Though it may represent a small percentage of posts on ATF, for me it represents at least 90% of the knowledge that I have accrued while being here. I love having it available, and in no way would want the high standards that are kept in that forum decreased or diminished.

So what could a new forum add? I do like the idea of a soundboard, an area to pose the philosophical or esoteric questions in regard to the historical tarot decks. I think it would be lovely to have those active participants in the historical section participate as well- and this could only enrich the experience.

Another topic that I would love to see: the actual usage of the historical tarot decks that stands within the construct of both the historical and esoteric background of tarot. While not all historians may read/use tarot, it would be lovely to have an area where that gap could be bridged. An example for me would be the Etteilla decks; I have learned an extraordinary amount of information regarding this deck and its variants from the historical forum. Where there is a relative lack is in the actual usage of the cards- while keeping in thought and spirit the historical perspective from which it came. Having an area that could bridge the gap of usage for historical decks within this context would be lovely. I am thinking of Mel's old fashioned pips thread- which was fabulous!

I am very pleased that some of the individuals from the historical forum have been participating in this discussion and truly hope to see their fabulous work continue both in the historical forum, and in the new one if opened.

These are just my thoughts, but hopefully a sound resolution can be worked out that can expand participation while maintaining the high standard that has been set in the historical forum. I have recently grown to love and study the historical tarot- and appreciate the efforts of all who have contributed to AT and spent their own time and energy in improving the education of others.

Yes, I second your thoughts. accidentally i have just posted a spread, that my gran and her people used with the original Soprafino cards. I feel things like this is, what is missing .

 

[foolish]

I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.

Why does this thread seem to be devolving back into a battle between the strict historians who don't seem to place any value in discussing anything other than dry facts, and those who do? Using terms like "factless" and "story town" are just attempts to demean and make fun of the people want to have other kinds of conversations. It's the exact reason that some people here have expressed an interest in having a forum separate from the current history section.

I thought that point was already established - which is why we're actually voting on it.

This isn't about the idea that "a good story has precedence over historical veracity." It's not a contest where one type of discussion is more valid than another. It's about allowing people the right to engage in a forum without being constricted by the limited set of rules that historians have set for themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with those rules - as we have been told, they are essential for historical research. It's just that not everyone wants to be a historian.

I get the feeling that some of those who so desperately want to defend the principles of the current history section are doing so because they're afraid that they'll lose all their powers of "criticism" if this other section, in which people want to talk ABOUT historical events, is ever established.

We should have come to the understanding by now that there are some people who don't want to limit their discussions about the tarot to known facts. I think we should get back to the question of whether AT should encourage or support these people to engage in these discussions by setting up a "strict historian-rules-free" section.

 

[philebus]

Foolish, I think that you might be missing the point of some of the concerns over this. A 'history' forum that is a rules of history free zone is probably not best described as history, no? Also, in what way are the offerings there to be discussed? Is there to be no room for critique of any kind? Or just critique that somehow doesn't match that of the empirical disciplines? For speculations about what are essentially empirical matters, that's going to leave very little for it to be beyond flights of fancy. Placing such restrictions on a forum that it, as it is called to be, in the history section, will do nothing to bridge the gap between the different points of view here and may work to keep them from ever having to meet.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, if so, can you explain exactly how you think it should work - what rules to set, and what critiques to allow.

 

[Huck]

I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.

Why does this thread seem to be devolving back into a battle between the strict historians who don't seem to place any value in discussing anything other than dry facts, and those who do? Using terms like "factless" and "story town" are just attempts to demean and make fun of the people want to have other kinds of conversations. It's the exact reason that some people here have expressed an interest in having a forum separate from the current history section.

I thought that point was already established - which is why we're actually voting on it.

Inside the start article of this thread it was definitely also requested:

4. Is there opposition against a new Forum?

The start article had been written "2 days ago" according the Aeclectic clock. I would think, that it is appropriate to give everybody some time to respond to it. I would suggest a week, if nobody minds. In the case ... as it was suggested to ask similar questions in other forums ... that other forums were also taken in the discussion (which at least would be logical for the other historical Forums) it might become longer.