There's Something Seriously Messed Up Here

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 11 Jan 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

horoskope88	11 Jan 2004
jktarot.com It's an anti-Tarot site. If it doesn't atleast annoy you, then....do you really do Tarot? Example? "Ex-Chief of Police Charles Moose claims in his new book that "that the leak of the tarot [death] card" by news media following the Bowie school shooting contributed to the last five sniper killings. Chief Moose thus confirms what the ATA in October denied—that Death really DOES mean death and the snipers' "reading" was accurate.—9/19/03" Um...yeah...sure... Lot's of goodies on this site..-_- (Ok, quite honestly, I can't tell if its ridiculing Tarot or not...the site is so thick with sarcasm I can't tell...but I *think* its an anti-Tarot site....I need some sleep...)

Melvis	12 Jan 2004
Wow. It makes my brain hurt. I can't tell whether she (he?) likes tarot or not. It seems that she dislikes everyone who ever talked about tarot ever, not matter what they said. Hmmm. You know what? I just figured it out. This must be what a 'Tarot Fundamentalist' would be like! Interesting... I might bookmark it just to give myself a good slap in the face once in a while. ;) Maybe not... Peace, Melvis :TSTRE

miss_apples	12 Jan 2004
people can not like tarot all they want. Its just another opinion that some people have and thats ok. Just as long as they dont start some silly campaign to ban the making and selling and reading of tarot cards...I can respect someones anti-tarot opinions.

Majecot	12 Jan 2004
I remember this site.. this person joined AT a while ago and I recall the thread being somewhat flaming... my belief is that they are anti-tarot, there were references made to "you tarot readers". I decided it was not worth my time and energy. I refuse to give that web site another hit.

miss_apples	12 Jan 2004
It looks to me as if they are pro tarot as a deck of playing cards but they dont agree with the "occult" uses of tarot.

Shade	12 Jan 2004
Ok this is so non-ascended but who wants to send some mail... it won't solve anythin, it will only make u sfrustrated... but who wants to?

miss_apples	12 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Shade Ok this is so non-ascended but who wants to send some mail... it won't solve anythin, it will only make u sfrustrated... but who wants to? for what reason?

Diana	12 Jan 2004
If anyone sends mail for whatever reason they deem fit, I suggest that it not be done as a member of Aeclectic, but as a private matter between jk and yourself. I think jk is entitled to have his views on Tarot - he is not an ignoramus - he has knowledge of Tarot, has a sense of humour as well, and has decided that this is the way he wishes to use it. It's a free world. I doubt anyone will get him to change his mind and why should anyone want to? Personally, his web-site does not provide me with much insight, so I prefer not to visit it at all.

miss_apples	12 Jan 2004
I completly agree with Diana. He is entitled to his own opinion and look at things. I read his faq and it looks like he is not just talking out of his rear...he is making his opinions from facts that he has studied.

Vynara	12 Jan 2004
i agree with miss_apples. JK has his own opinions, and it's not like he's twisting anyone's arm to visit his website... so if you really find it offending just don't go. *shrugs* Like what Newton's law states, for every action there would be a equal and opposite reaction. So.. just do nothing and nothing will happen. Peace!

wildinthemist	23 Jan 2004
While JK seems like he may be a fully paid-up member of the tarot police .... I visit occasionally as a balance to some of the more over the rainbow fluff sites. I like to read a range of views. I figure that if I haven't developed a modicum of discernment and the ability to make choices by now (at the ripe old age of 52), I should turn up my toes ... down you dratted toes .... and just watch the mainstream news channels to find the "T"ruth, LOL.

Le_Corsair	23 Jan 2004
[font=Times New Roman]Oh, ho, our brief fellow member, Tarotica. It's easy enough to bash him for his views, because they aren't views you share. But look at how well his website is constructed, how much time went into it. Certainly he has an affection for tarot to spend so much time constructing and maintaining such an impressive website, and he runs a Yahoo! group as well. Only 30 members, though. (I'm not a member of it, so I'm not advertising.) Tarotica wasn't here long enough to learn the rules, or perhaps he just has contempt for them. His one thread was deleted without comment, even though he was not particularly flaming anyone. He was advertising, this is true, but that could have been edited out. I wish he would have stayed longer. I wish his thread still existed. I wish threads, posts and members wouldn't disappear without notice. I think it's wrong. We're talking about cards. Coated pieces of paper. Anytime I see something even slightly controversial at Aeclectic Tarot, I have to copy it into my hard drive, because I can't be sure that I will see it more than once. I'm even going to have to do it to this reply. :D I think that is sad. Bob :THERM [/font]

Macavity	23 Jan 2004
He's entertaining in small doses? But I haven't forgiven him for calling us Brits efete and giving LMD that one star book review on Amazon? :laugh: I'd be a bit saddened he doesn't have more important things to do in life... Maybe he does? I would be a little cautious, he seems to have a propensity to take material from other newsgroups to form part of his "tirades" and attack the poster personally, notably after the event and in their absence... Macavity I thought initially it was something to do with (the JK of) Harry Potter })

Major Tom	23 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Le_Corsair [font=Times New Roman] Tarotica wasn't here long enough to learn the rules, or perhaps he just has contempt for them. I wish he would have stayed longer. I wish his thread still existed. I wish threads, posts and members wouldn't disappear without notice. I think it's wrong. We're talking about cards. Coated pieces of paper. Anytime I see something even slightly controversial at Aeclectic Tarot, I have to copy it into my hard drive, because I can't be sure that I will see it more than once. I'm even going to have to do it to this reply. :D I think that is sad. Bob :THERM [/font] *swigs in from the halyards* "I'll save you". :laugh: Deleting the post was excessive as we have the option of editing. I thought he provoked both thought and emotion. :rolleyes: *starts singing* "R.E.S.P.E.C.T. that's how much you mean to me." Tarotica is not banned and could come back. ;) If you reckon you're up to the job, write to Solandia and tell her about it.

baba-prague	23 Jan 2004
I think it's within etiquette here to say that he quite often posts on tarotl and has at times been a source of much discussion - to put it politely - there. I find his site simply too attention-seeking to merit much attention (if you know what I mean). Beyond that I can't comment.

Kiama	23 Jan 2004
I read the site, and personally didn't think much of it. I always enjoy reading about what others think, but I get a leeetle bit annoyed when those others start claiming their way is the only right way, and anybody who says otherwise is doing it 'wrong', is too 'fluffy', etc etc... I was interested in JK's views on the death card. I agree slightly with him/her that sometimes the Death card does mean physical death. But it's the way he/she wrote it that annoyed me. And Bob? Personally, I think you're over-exaggerating slightly when you say that: Quote: Anytime I see something even slightly controversial at Aeclectic Tarot, I have to copy it into my hard drive, because I can't be sure that I will see it more than once. I'm even going to have to do it to this reply. Aeclectic is a large forum. And I mean Laaaaaargggeee. It is to be expected that every now and then posts get edited or deleted. In a small forum, it is less likely to happen, based on simply chance and probability. The more members there are, the more likely it is that threads get delted/edited, people start flaming, etc. Aeclectic does not seek to silence those who dissent or disagree with us. I wouldn't still be here after 3 years if that was the goal of Aeclectic. There is a huuuuuge diversity of opinion here (notice how many times I've come to blows about the Marseilles decks, oh Robin Wood fanatic that I am? })), and that diversity is welcomed with open arms. If it wasn't, you could expect to see far worse things happening. And they're not. Just because the forum rules do not allow for flaming, unsolicited and blatant advertising, swearing and other crude forms of speech, does not mean 'controversial' threads simply get deleted. Controversial is fine. Differing opinions, great! But it is the manner in which they are done that makes all the difference. Anywho, I've rambled again. I hope you understand what I'm saying, that I have expressed what I'm trying to say clearly. *Crossed fingers* Blessings, Kiama

Moongold	23 Jan 2004
I think Aeclectic is a great place which encourages a wide range of views on many subjects. I prefer to see Aeclectic as learning community. Sometimes there are controversial matters. People handle them differently. Most often Moderators handle these matters with humanity and wisdom. Sometimes some Moderators get carried away in the zeal to protect the community and exercise poor judgement. Moderators are only human like the rest of us. Most of the time they do a big job really well. Who amongst us has not exercised questionable judgement on occasion? If something goes wrong, I would encourage people to write to Solandia if it cannot be resolved here. Ideas and emotion - an out of balance combination can mean trouble. Some posts are quite difficult to make fair judgements about as well. It depends on the values one has and how much scope one is able to give the values of others. Maybe Temperance should be the Patron of the Forums :). Moongold

firemaiden	23 Jan 2004
Bob, no posts ever get deleted without fair warning. To begin with there are rules to follow on which kinds of things not to post. That is warning number one. Warning number two, comes, when someone violates the rules, they are very politely asked to unviolate them and edit their post. If there is a refusal to do so, then maybe further action may be taken. But no post is ever deleted thoughtlessly, if action is to be taken it is deliberated very carefully and considered from many different angles.

jmd	23 Jan 2004
I'm somewhat surprised with the turns within this thread. With regards to JK's site (the topic which heads this thread), I do tend to agree on a number of views which have already been expressed here... that, for example, each is certainly entitled to their view, and is also entitled to express them as they so wish on their own site or their own Forum or e.group. Personally, I rarely visit that site, for various reasons, but basically because there are many important and positive ways one can engage in Tarot... ways, which encourage positivity, which I personally prefer. How well a site is constructed, and how much time goes into it, is not necessarily a reflection of Tarot, but of how much time one may want to spend on web-design and software manipulation. Of course, one needs a subject on which to apply this, and one's other interests will likely therefore kick in. I do not know JK's orientations with regards to Tarot. There certainly appears to have been a fair amount of participation, judgeing from my own past interactions, with especially the free-for-all, and unfortunately degenerated, alt.Tarot. I use the term 'degenerated' in the sense that the tone, language and abuses which emerged thereon, in the name of free speech, actually stiffled, with time, genuine Tarot focussed discussions. Each person's site is for themselves to decide (subject, of course, to the various local legislative constraints). As is each person's Forum should they decide to add such to their site. Personally, I prefer to participate on Solandia's Aeclectic tarotforum. Many sites have Forums, many of which have various levels of activity. If there was also a Forum linked to JK's site, given my own preferences, I cannot imagine myself participating there. To each their own...

Moongold	23 Jan 2004
I didn’t like the site at all. The owner seems to use the tarot to promote his own ideas very strongly. He seems to associate the tarot with war and sensationalism. There was certainly some evidence of anti-feminism there as well. It’s a well constructed site and would appeal to many. The owner knows how to use the media to promote his own ideas. I don’t like many of his ideas so I probably would only visit to see what is happening. I think it is important to monitor what is happening in areas of personal interest. If there were lots of sites like this I would be concerned, and one would ask the question – What is happening to inspire this kind of interest? But there are not. I think there are many very positive tarot sites. Some of these are informative and beautiful (Aeclectic is one such) and others are more commercial. www.mellinetti.com is very interesting site which tries to use tarot to comment and inform on world events. I haven’t been there for a while and hope it is still as I last saw it. This kind of site promotes tarot in a healthy way, I think. It is interesting to speculate about what would happen if tarot was to become much more popular. Would it loose something of the attraction it is for us? It would certainly be corrupted in many ways, as astrology seems to have been in the popular media. Imagine a Dear Dorothy Dix column with tarot, and imagine financial advice being given with Tarot readings as a matter of course in the Financial Review I did not see any of Tarotica's posts and my comments on the judgement of posts were general. Moongold

wildinthemist	23 Jan 2004
Have a look at the New Idea ... has it's Dear Dorothy Dix version with a psychic, as well as Feng Shui etc. Maybe tarot ... not sure, so long since I picked one up. It is a tad scary though LOL

snuffy	23 Jan 2004
i'm sorry to butt in here, but i must ask, what's this dear dorothy dix business? i live a few miles down the road from her asylum, so i've always had a fascination with her. needless to say, i had to do a double take when i saw her name up here!

mac22	23 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by horoskope88 jktarot.com It's an anti-Tarot site. If it doesn't atleast annoy you, then....do you really do Tarot? And this surprises you....WHY?? There have always been these kinds of sites.... I learned a long time ago ... to simply ignore these types of sites & the people behind them.....it is/was because of such people that the Tarot & other things were considered occult [hidden]

Moongold	23 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by snuffy i'm sorry to butt in here, but i must ask, what's this dear dorothy dix business? i live a few miles down the road from her asylum, so i've always had a fascination with her. needless to say, i had to do a double take when i saw her name up here! Hi snuffy ~ That is a good question. There are apparently two famous American women called Dorothy Dix . One was a social reformer born in the very early 19th century who did set up more benevolent institutions for the mentally ill. She is not the one I was referring to. There was another Dorothy Dix who was a Tenessee journalist who wrote very witty newspaper columns in which she apparently gave advice to people. This Dorthy Dix was born a little later. Now I'm Australian and no expert on US history but I have heard about both extraordinary women. This was years ago and I'm happy to be corrected. Moongold

snuffy	23 Jan 2004
aha, yes, i see now! i was wondering how a civil war social-reformer had anything to do with tarot :laugh: thanks for the clarification there.

full deck	24 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Moongold . . . If there were lots of sites like this I would be concerned, and one would ask the question – What is happening to inspire this kind of interest? But there are not. . . . It is interesting to speculate about what would happen if tarot was to become much more popular. Would it loose something of the attraction it is for us? It would certainly be corrupted in many ways, as astrology seems to have been in the popular media. That is a more important thought than that guy's site. If one visits Buddhist temples in Korea, one finds that if someone has created a paved road to that temple, it has usually been commercialized and has been updated, (i.e., corrupted) so much that it has lost all charm and character, thus my maxim: "When the road to the temple has been paved, there is no learning there." meaning that the temple and its teachings have been corrupted to the point of being worthless. Likewise, I find that when the effort in an intellectual or spiritual pursuit has been lessened by those of good intention, it usually the value of the effort one makes to make the journey. The struggle to learn is what makes the journey interesting. Stress and strain does make my work better it seems. There is enough fluffy nonsense going around already and over-exposure probably would prove detrimental in terms of the public's perception of Tarot but the nice thing is that no matter what could happen, I could always pick up a deck and meditate upon such in my home without having to consider any thing else. It would not change much ultimately.

wildinthemist	24 Jan 2004
The 'Dear Dorothy Dix' reference is a generalised term for those awful advice columns in syndicated magazines.

Red Emma	24 Jan 2004
If it's the same Charles Moose who was once chief of police in my community, we fired him. It made sense to me at the time, and it makes even more sense now.

Diana	24 Jan 2004
Do you think it could be the same one, Red Emma? Here is his biography. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mc/services/police/chiefbio.htm He seems to be a very well-respected policeman (who is now making a nice tidy sum of money from his book on the Sniper business as well, which is controversial, I suppose). He also seems to have some kind of persecution complex relating to the colour of his skin, but that may just be gossip, I don't know. Talking of the Sniper shootings, I remember we did readings on them in the Your Readings. Would be interesting to go and see them now in retrospect.

Logiatrix	24 Jan 2004
Jess Karlin likes tarot just fine. I remember his works when his site was much less polished or extensive. His site is one of the first I ever visited when I began the study of tarot. His writing style is very tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic, certainly, but for that I am actually very appreciative. The site shares all aspects of tarot--the good, the bad, and the ugly. As a newcomer, his honest (and highly opinionated) perspective encouraged me to maintain a realistic approach as I discovered tarot for myself. :)

MeeWah	25 Jan 2004
Tauni: The contribution of your positive experience is much appreciated. Offers a much-needed balance to the perspective & the perceptions towards the whole of the site & not just one portion.

jmd	25 Jan 2004
Tauni, I can only but echo MeeWah's comment :)

ribbitcat	28 Jan 2004
I like jk's stuff , he makes me laugh ; also , what he does really well is challenge the status quo , and provocation - of thought , and of people :-) In any arena , people who question the "givens" and accepted norms/customs are valuable - even if their attitude is ....curmudgeonly :-) Kind regards , ribbitcat

Logiatrix	29 Jan 2004
(MeeWah, jmd....thank you.) I like ribbitcat's choice of the word "curmudgeonly" as an appropriate description of JK's style. I just happen to be the kind of audience who enjoys curmudgeons! I think we need that kind of sardonic wit to keep us down a peg or two, lest we should start taking it all--and ourselves--too seriously. Fortunately, I'm above all that silliness, myself....I can laugh freely at everyone else, because surely he's not talking about me.... Is he? ;)

The There's Something Seriously Messed Up Here thread was originally posted on 11 Jan 2004 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.