In article <nq7s02t7sn8sgk4jdo3nd2au0r2v8jg950@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Wally Anglesea™ <wanglese@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:50:51 -0700, Crowfoot <pagemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mrom02p973fjfdc4h6h9f4i5rpr5dqlp68@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Wally Anglesea™ <wanglese@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:22:58 -0700, Crowfoot <pagemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <757d02dl0ad5egb631g632s1o1v94euo15@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> > SKEPTIX <skeptix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> To join the SKEPTIX list (the best paranormal, ufo-ology, and
> >> >> cryptozoology discussion mailing list around), those interested
should
> >> >> go to
http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/org.opn.lists.skeptix
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> p.s. If you wish to take a look at the list before joining, check
out
> >> >> the newsgroup bit.listserv.skeptic
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> p.p.s. If your newsreader isn't getting that newsgroup, you're
> >> >> getting screwed! :-)
> >> >
> >> >I gave up on skeptics when a particular idiot who so described
> >> >himself dismissed the (apparently) very apposite Tarot reading I
> >> >did for him on the ground that I had manipulated the cards; as if
> >> >I had time in my life (I'm a working professional in the arts, only
> >> >do Tarot readings from time to time for friends, usually) to sit
> >> >around learning to maneuver these damn big, clumsy cards so I
> >> >could impress skeptics! I realized at that point that skeptics are
> >> >usually motivated by fear, which means that they will go through
> >> >any insane mental acrobatics to "explain away" whatever scares
> >> >them, so why bother with them at all? Getting through the fear
> >> >is impossible, as it's *their* job that they have to do for
> >> >themselves. Me, I've got other fish to fry.
> >>
> >> You mean "I've got other rubes to bilk"
> >
> >Uh -- how, exactly? I don't take $ for doing readings, and
> >generally take it lightly, because -- well, it's up to the person
> >who's having the reading to decide that it's more than that;
> >or not.
>
> So you agree that there's no value in the random sorting of bits of
> laminated cardboard?
I agree that sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't, but
that's for the one I read for to decide; and $ should not be an
element of that judgment. I always tell them right off, sometimes
this works (usually it runs about 6 months on), but sometimes
not, and sometimes it's completely off and turns out (if it turns
out at all) to have been a reading of someone else entirely. Still
want to do it?
They usually say yes; we do the cards. They say thanks. They
come back months later, a good number of them, and ask for
another reading because that one was so "good". I'm not going
to tell them otherwise (how should I know?), and they're not
spending any money on this, so, no foul, no whatever. The
problem is a) taking it all too seriously and b) dismissing it all
as nonsense. Like most things of this nature, it's hit and miss.
I can live with that, as can these folks who want more readings.
If you can't, don't. No problem that I can see.
C
|
