trzes
Mahafrins said the readers say "you are going to have a baby" OR "you are going to be pregnant".
I presume different readers put their message in different words. And since you need to be pregnant before having a baby anyway (except you are virgin Mary or can afford a Surrogacy) that's pretty much the same.
And you're sort of going in circles with what you say here, aren't you? Wrong is wrong, whether they're meaning metaphorically or anything else.
Not sure what you mean by that, so I will try to put my point a bit more precisely: If the OP should become physically pregnant in the near future (that's my understanding of "going to be") then the readings will turn out to be right of course. But as the OP stated that's rather unlikely. In all other cases (including metaphoric pregnancies) the readings are wrong. If we follow the OP's common sense judgment of the situation, then the readings will turn out to be wrong indeed. No circles, no ambiguities here.
And I'm always saying readings aren't always "accurate" so you get no argument from me on that.
Can "not accurate" also mean "plain wrong"? Then we don't have any argument here indeed. The readers will (most likely) have fouled up on that reading. Agreed?
We're all trying to add some thought to Mahafrins' post to help her understand it, so all our input is valuable. Only time will tell what was right and what wasn't.
That's nicely put, but in fact it's a euphemism for the attempt to make the reading look better than it actually was by assuming things the reader could have meant but in fact never said.