Icky feeling when potential Readers suss out your previous questions?

Bonny

Up to a point I agree.

BUT there have been cases where one person is hurting themselves by obsessing - I am not about to name anyone - but the individual I am thinking of who reads frequently on the same issue has actually said fair cop, and been happy to discuss the earlier readings in relation to the most recent. If one has been following an individual (stalking, you call it) because you are concerned about them, I DO think it's OK to mention their earlier readings. If they immediately said please don't, I would comply - but so far that hasn't happened in the case I have in mind.

Also it is, I think, fair to ask "is this the same guy you asked about yesterday" as that may colour your take on a new reading.


What you're saying here about 'concern' is meritous, totally agree.

This is different from the energy of 'I've checked up in you and you have asked quite a lot in x so I decline.'

Concern is a nebulous dynamic; there used to be a comedy in this country , where a character would name off many many intrusive, mean, woeful things they would do to/for their son-in law or daughter and then say, 'All because I care'.
Concern guises projected thoughts.
The transaction is pretty simple at AT:
Yes?
Reader offers a seat.
A sitter sits
Reader reads
Sitter listens and gives feedback.

'You've done this, I know because I checked up on you' and 'I don't think you're meant for him' and 'I wish you would just get it' are not the hallmarks of good practitioner or teacher or Reader in any domain.

Those presumptions affect the power relationship with the Sitter, they become the lesser , the vulnerable, the poorer one in the exchange. The potential Reader assumes more power via information getting and use of rhetorical devices structured like this, 'you have asked this question before and I will not have this on my thread'. It's a power thing.

I am saying this is the wrong way around. The Sitter deserves the greater place.

Within 24 hours, tsunamis roll, people die, babies are born, rships topple or excel.
All unexpectedly.
How can a Reader , especially in a world wide forum such as this presume that the Sitter is just ignoring the signs given?

More pertinently I would ask WHY do they do that...

It seems unwise to me.
 

Bonny

Hi Bonny.

I do look at people's previous threads if I have a sense that they're repeating themselves in the Your Readings forum. It doesn't happen all that often, but when I do get a sense of deja vu, I don't hesitate to check for old threads from the person asking for help.

Looking at the history of shared readings can give perspective on where the person is coming from. It also helps me decide whether to participate in the thread. This is not voyeurism or stalking. It's in my own interest to see if I'm risking a dead end or unrewarding interaction with the questioner, and it might help her to learn that repeated readings on the same topic become less and less meaningful.

When I was paid for readings, I refused repeated requests that I seemed ill-advised. I see this as similar.

Hope this makes sense to you.


Hi Debra,

Saying that it's not voyeurism doesn't make 'not voyerism'.
It is in your interest, you say -yes but that doesn't discount it involving some kind of intrusion and looking at with a particular lens. It's my argument that this causes harm.

'First do no harm' = first rule of medicine.

Human beings are involving themselves here.
Whether as a professional (yes I have been a professional in a plethora of helping profession) or as an AT member, you and everyone on here is effecting everyone else. The principles you approach human beings from effect them.
To apply a principle of 'this is a repeat sitter and I have a rule (now what were the presumptions I based that rule on?) NOT to include them, but yo coldly say 'I refuse repeat Sitters/questions' has a gross effect on the Sitter.

'First do no harm' would bequest at least a margin of humility and situational ethics applied in each circumstance and sensitivity to the one who has generously bestowed you with the grace of their trust.

I recommend more kindness.
 

zhadee

<<<queues up>>>

hi Bonny,
I am one of these readers who checks postings for repeated questions and refuses to read repeated questions which appear to demand a specific reply that hasn't been given in numerous replies before.
I also have been blunt enough to refuse reading a certain topic of yours.
Now I'm curious to learn what you have to say to me in this matter. :)
 

Debra

Hm. I was thinking of the Your Readings forum, where the thread starter posts their reading, asks for comments, and gives feedback. It seems just as reasonable in a "readings offered" thread.

I don't know what interactions you find disturbing. If you find ME unkind, I'd appreciate a pm so we can discuss it privately. Or report it to a moderator. If you're speaking not specifically, but generally on principle, I understand and respectfully disagree.
 

Bonny

Hm. I was thinking of the Your Readings forum, where the thread starter posts their reading, asks for comments, and gives feedback. It seems just as reasonable in a "readings offered" thread.

I don't know what interactions you find disturbing. If you find ME unkind, I'd appreciate a pm so we can discuss it privately. Or report it to a moderator. If you're speaking not specifically, but generally on principle, I understand and respectfully disagree.

It's the Reading Exchanges that this finds s about.
Not the 'Your readings section'.

I find the action by people raking through échanges by others with others to be the problem. Especially when that is followed by the kinds of condemnations that I have remarked on explicitly earlier.

The appeal for kindness wasn't towards you personally.
It was for an increase in kindness in the energetics and practices of Readers in regards to this issue I have identified.

B
 

gregory

Hm. I was thinking of the Your Readings forum, where the thread starter posts their reading, asks for comments, and gives feedback. It seems just as reasonable in a "readings offered" thread.
So was I.
 

DownUnderNZer

As "readers" that is responsible. It is just to see what has been "asked" really not to "use all those readings" as part of a reading against a sitter nor to "enable" anyone that is not really helping her/himself.

Ethical and responsible.

I think "readings" should not be "misused" against a "sitter", but I do think a "sitter" needs to "respect" boundaries that are set by a Reader as they are put in place for a reason. I think it is high time that s/he sees that asking the "same questions" about the "same person" 2 to 3 times or more a day adds up to something ridiculous like 48 to 80 times a month. Give or take. :bugeyed:

My hat goes off to the READERS that set boundaries and do not enable certain sitters.

Kudos to you!



DND :)



Hi Bonny.

I do look at people's previous threads if I have a sense that they're repeating themselves in the Your Readings forum. It doesn't happen all that often, but when I do get a sense of deja vu, I don't hesitate to check for old threads from the person asking for help.

Looking at the history of shared readings can give perspective on where the person is coming from. It also helps me decide whether to participate in the thread. This is not voyeurism or stalking. It's in my own interest to see if I'm risking a dead end or unrewarding interaction with the questioner, and it might help her to learn that repeated readings on the same topic become less and less meaningful.

When I was paid for readings, I refused repeated requests that I seemed ill-advised. I see this as similar.

Hope this makes sense to you.

<<<queues up>>>

hi Bonny,
I am one of these readers who checks postings for repeated questions and refuses to read repeated questions which appear to demand a specific reply that hasn't been given in numerous replies before.
I also have been blunt enough to refuse reading a certain topic of yours.
Now I'm curious to learn what you have to say to me in this matter. :)
 

Bonny

<<<queues up>>>

hi Bonny,
I am one of these readers who checks postings for repeated questions and refuses to read repeated questions which appear to demand a specific reply that hasn't been given in numerous replies before.
I also have been blunt enough to refuse reading a certain topic of yours.
Now I'm curious to learn what you have to say to me in this matter. :)

To you in this matter I think it's off, Zhadee.
I think your method of operating in this regard is off.

The 'appear' Term is the key one I think.

We don't see things as they are. We see them as we are.

Presuming the person wants a particular answer is impuning to them and arrogant of the Reader.
 

Silmaril23

It's the Reading Exchanges that this finds s about.
Not the 'Your readings section'.

I find the action by people raking through échanges by others with others to be the problem. Especially when that is followed by the kinds of condemnations that I have remarked on explicitly earlier.

B

Hi everyone.

As someone who looks at the "reading exchange" thread often (almost every day), I don't think that anyone needs to rake through previous exchanges to get a sense of who the repeat sitters are. I'm not talking about *you* specifically, Bonny, but I have definitely noticed that the same people want to sit for the same (or very similar) questions almost every day. I think that anyone who reads the Reading Exchanges forum regularly will notice these same patterns, without any "stalking" behavior being involved.

As someone who really would like to read as much as possible and learn as much as possible, I've actually personally become discouraged about using the Reading Exchange forum for this reason. I just don't want to do daily readings for the exact same people with the exact same (or almost exact same) question. I personally don't think it's useful for learning or for divination, period.

One solution or way that I have found that helps to get around this is by offering readings with a specific spread/template (e.g. a "Psychological Spread", or as someone else did recently, the "Shadow Spread", etc. etc. ). Then people can ask questions within this template.

I agree with you though, about kindness, Bonny. We can all be more kind. But I would add that some people are also naturally just more blunt and straightforward, by nature. This doesn't mean that they aren't kind--it's just a particular personality style. (Although I'm not involved in any current situation here and am commenting from the outside, I am probably more of a straight-shooter type myself.)
 

Debra

Bonny, I don't understand imputing the worst possible motive to people who practice this. Unkindness, voyeurism, incompetence? Should be banned?

Is it disappointing to be turned down, and maybe embarrassing, and maybe other emotions come into play? These reactions don't reflect the competence, ethics, or compassion of the reader. These reactions are yours to own.