Re: Moved from AT

#51
Here's the Building Blocks thread.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=245

I'm not sure whether to revive it for discussion, or start over again?

Edited to add: I just reread through the above thread, and wish I hadn't linked to it. If anything, it is a lesson in how hard it is to build consensus. I would hope we could do a better job if we started from scratch.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Moved from AT

#52
16 pages....
Start over again !
But I'm not sure we could (well, to be honest, "you" would be more appropriate since I don't believe I would be of a big help) start without a first draft as reference, which could be updated on the go.
Maybe that kind of collaborative tool would be useful (as it shows revisions) : http://framapad.org/ ?
If someone feels like writing an incomplete and factual draft that would be just great.

Bertrand

Re: Moved from AT

#53
I'd completely forgotten that old thread. I started reading again at the beginning and got about half way through, but my eyes are stinging - I must finish tomorrow.

Do you remember that page at Tarot L - I believe Mary spoke of updating it. I always thought the reversed statements that were then contradicted with the correct information were liable to stick in the mind and confuse, but otherwise it was useful.

I still favour a Sticky Locked thread with a series of posts/essays like Perspectives on the Ur Tarot. They could be submitted to Robert and he could make sure they were suitable before posting. Just an idea.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy...

Re: Moved from AT

#54
I edited my post above because I just read through the building blocks thread and, while it had a lot of good points and discussions, it also shows how difficult it is to come to consensus on this topic. We would be better served to try again with the current active members rather than digging up a thread that might have been best laid to rest. I'm sorry I linked to it.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Moved from AT

#55
This is my two cents.

I'm sorry to see that people raced over for a bit of destructive fun on the AT tarot history and iconography forum. The AT moderators listened to a long discussion and a poll about how to revive the history and iconography forum. They agreed to make changes based on participants' desires. I saw what Huck did that resulted in a temporary suspension. The moderator briefly locked a couple of threads and posted requests for patience while they set up a new subforum. Huck did not approve, and he quickly opened a new thread inviting people to continue discussing their complaints. He then suggested that people come here to talk about tarot history and linked directly to a thread here where he and others are complaining about AT.

I always loved this forum; I joined early. I've continued reading although I've stopped participating. The building blocks thread helped establish a tone of intolerance. Members whose views I found most interesting and informative have been discouraged from posting. The tarot history topics pursued here seem narrowly defined and the discussions too often turn mean-spirited.

I don't see that the forum has developed a consensus on tarot history among people with superior methods and expertise. I see some people basically ignored, and others intimidated and battered by relentless personal attacks in a macho game of dominance. This has nothing to do with academic rigor or scholarly discourse.

You can easily introduce newcomers to a generally acceptable summary of tarot history by sending them to the tarotpedia article which I believe is written by mjhurst, or recommending a readily-available book like Huson's Mystical Origins of the Tarot.

As for the future of this forum: I see a naive and limited view of disciplinary research.

First, tarot history is of no particular interest to historians for good reason. And it interests us for our own individual reasons. Dummett got into it as a distraction from what he thought was really important. Some people come from an interest in divination or an occult (or occult-ish) motivation. Others don't.

Second, in the history and the humanities, identifying logical fallacies in someone's work is not how you get to the truth. Much of what is presented as historical evidence here is not impressive. Often what is presented here as rigorous logic, airtight argumentation, and examination of meaningful evidence does not exemplify objectivity and good judgment.

Third, tarot history should be interdisciplinary and here it is not. Almost no one demonstrates expertise or training in art history. The people who consider themselves real historians tend to give the actual images and physical printed cards only superficial treatment. So claims to know the most important parts of the tarot history story are incomplete at best.

Fourth, some participants on the forum have a peculiar and distorted vision of academic exchange. If someone is exploring a line of thinking you don't believe, and you've asked relevant questions, given good reasons for thinking they are mistaken, and have no interest in helping develop that perspective--that's where scholars and intellectuals stop. To persist, to ridicule, to get angry or frustrated that one person doesn't take your point--this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth or learning.

I'm sorry to see intensified efforts to establish the "agree or shut up" approach. Do you all really want to abandon the original promise that "The forum encourages freedom and independence of view, together with tolerance and care of others"? I hope not.

--peace out--

Re: Moved from AT

#56
debra wrote:This is my two cents.

I'm sorry to see that people raced over for a bit of destructive fun on the AT tarot history and iconography forum.
We tried discussing it there, the thread was pulled, no warning, no pm, just gone. Huck was banned. Considering how people were treated, no surprise we discussed AT here. Considering how AT is discussed "elsewhere", a bit of calling the kettle black from you, no?
The AT moderators listened to a long discussion and a poll about how to revive the history and iconography forum.
They listened to a long discussion and poll about the destruction of the history forum, and the creation of a new forum where people could talk nonsense disguised as history.
They agreed to make changes based on participants' desires. I saw what Huck did that got him a temporary suspension. The moderator briefly locked a couple of threads and posted a request for patience while they set up a new subforum. Huck did not approve, and he quickly opened a new thread inviting people to continue discussing their complaints. He then suggested that people come here to talk about tarot history and linked directly to a thread here where he and others are complaining about AT.
So instead of discussing it with him, the opportunity was jumped on to punish him and slap his hand with a ban.
The supposed cause of the ban was linking to his own forum, which this certainly is not. The rules on AT are ridiculous and limiting, and people are treated as juveniles. The ban on linking to other forums is an example of their desire to control and limit. There is a difference between spamming and providing information, but AT doesn't trust its members or its moderators to recognise the difference.
I always loved this forum; I joined early. I've continued reading although I've stopped participating. The "building blocks" thread helped establish a tone of intolerance. Members whose views I found most interesting and informative from have been discouraged from posting. The tarot history topics pursued here seem narrowly defined and the discussions too often turn mean-spirited.
I reread the thread, and it isn't pleasant. It shows how difficult it is to come up with a consensus about the facts regarding tarot history. It also shows a difference between the comfort levels that we have of defining what the facts are regarding tarot history. I'm coming to the opinion that it can't be done by consensus because eventually no one will be satisfied, especially if the group is made up of people with different viewpoints on some basic elements, as it was at that time. Could we do better now? I'm not at all sure we could if the same people participated, I doubt we have grown closer in our viewpoints.

I disagree with the topics being narrowly defined and too often mean spirited, I think there is an enormous amount of really incredible information on a variety of topics. If you mean you'd like more encouraging discussions on Cathers and gypsies and bards... etc, or more "this is my grandmother's method of reading with this deck" threads in the history section, then thankfully, yes, we have fewer of them.
I don't see that the forum has developed a consensus on tarot history among people with superior methods and expertise. I see some people basically ignored, and others intimidated and battered by relentless personal attacks in a macho game of dominance. This has nothing to do with academic rigor or scholarly discourse.
I disagree. I see occassional flare ups, usually in the researchers study where evidence is a requirement; but for the most part, I see many talented individuals working together to unravel the facts and details of tarot history. For the most part, people are supportive of each other, collaborative, and encouraging.
You can easily introduce newcomers to a generally acceptable summary of tarot history by sending them to the tarotpedia article which I believe is written by mjhurst, or recommending a readily-available book like Huson's Mystical Origins of the Tarot.
I suggested linking to Michael's introduction earlier in this thread, and that might be the best route.
As for the future of this forum: I see a naive and limited view of disciplinary research.

As compared to the new forum at AT?
First, tarot history is not of particular interest to historians for good reason. And it interests us for our own individual reasons. Dummett got into it as a distraction from what he thought was really important. Some people here come from an interest in divination or an occult (and occult-ish) motivation. Others don't.
There's an area for the discussion of the occult and divination, the Plush Parlor, which has little use due to little interest. As you know, there's also an area in the member's only section for reading, also cobwebs. It's just not an area that most members seem particularly interested in, but sections have been provided to accomodate those who do find it interesting.
Second, in the history and the humanities, logic is not the final word on truth. Much of what is presented as historical evidence here is not impressive. Overall, much of what is presented here as rigorous logic, airtight argumentation, and examination of meaningful evidence does not indicate objectivity and good judgment.
I agree that some of it is, and some of it isn't. The forum reflects its members.
Third, tarot history should be interdisciplinary and here it is not. Almost no one demonstrates expertise or training in art history. The actual images and physical printed cards get only superficial treatment. So claims to know the most important parts of the tarot history story are incomplete at best.
I disagree. I think the many threads in Bianca's Garden and the Exhibition Hall support the conclusion that there is a lot of interest this subject, and an amazing amount of knowledge. Personally, I love the iconography threads, but then I have a background in art and am currently studying history, religion and the humanities, so it's not too surprising.
If someone is exploring a line of thinking you don't believe, and you've asked relevant questions, given good reasons for thinking they are mistaken, and have no interest in helping develop that perspective--that's where scholars and intellectuals stop. To persist, to ridicule, to get angry or frustrated that one person doesn't take your point--this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth or learning.

I'm sad if the consensus is to emphasize an "agree or shut up" approach and to abandon the ideal that "The forum encourages freedom and independence of view, together with tolerance and care of others." I hope not.

--peace out--
Thanks for sharing your criticism of the forum and its members. I assume that your intention in presenting the current situation in such a dire light is to encourage reflection and improvement. Your view of the forum is very different than mine. I find the majority of the posts to be interesting, thoughtful, dedicated to truth, curious, encouraging, cooperative and supportive, not surprising since I find the core members of the forum exactly the same.

Moving foward, I'd personally like to see more threads discussing iconography, the development and spread of the patterns, and the rules of the game - because I think understanding the different rules helps to understand everything else. I'd like more discussion on the place of the printed decks in early development, to know more about how and why decks like the Vieville developed, and to learn more about some of my personal interests such as the Cary Sheet and the Francois Heri TdB. In other words, I think there are plenty of mysteries in tarot history to be discussed without inventing things and rehashing mythologies, but thankfully, now there's a place just for that at AT.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Moved from AT

#57
debra wrote:This is my two cents.

I'm sorry to see that people raced over for a bit of destructive fun on the AT tarot history and iconography forum.
I think you mean me. It's not fair to impute the same knowledge, if not motivation, to anyone else.

The latest problems at AT began with trolling by "TarotCard" on this thread three weeks ago -
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=148119

This and perhaps a growing sense of foreboding prompted Yggdrasilian to start the "Frege's Puzzle" thread -
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=173503&page=7

- in which everyone weighed in, even Robert Swiryn (foolish) came back.

Indeed I suspected, even if I did not know, that my response to him about "unreasonable people" and Michael Hurst's response, along with his blog entry, would probably soon lead us on the exact sort of downward spiral that happened once or twice nearly every year on AT until the last year or so, when the only regular denizens of THF to post on AT were Huck and MikeH. Having modded at AT for about a year, I knew the mod culture there well enough to anticipate what would happen when bullshit got called bullshit.

Also, please notice that at THF, we are not afraid of linking to other Forums, our own or others.
The AT moderators listened to a long discussion and a poll about how to revive the history and iconography forum. They agreed to make changes based on participants' desires. I saw what Huck did that got him a temporary suspension. The moderator briefly locked a couple of threads and posted a request for patience while they set up a new subforum. Huck did not approve, and he quickly opened a new thread inviting people to continue discussing their complaints. He then suggested that people come here to talk about tarot history and linked directly to a thread here where he and others are complaining about AT.


At the time he linked, we weren't complaining about AT. I just moved the last post - my own - from a thread that had been locked, so that we could continue discussing it here. We only starting complaining about AT after Huck was banned.

From his own posts on the matter, you can see that he is quite reasonable about it, and even thinks he can gain concessions from Solandia to make some kinds of modifications to AT to allow the sort of freedom we have here. I know this isn't going to happen, but hope springs eternal in some quarters.

Whatever I or others think about the quality of most of Huck's ideas, banning the most prolific - along with entertaining and conciliatory - of the so-called self-proclaimed "real historians" when the option of merely blocking the link to THF was available, was not a good idea. Huck was not the problem - people who don't understand what's been going with the old-timers in the Historical Research section for nearly a decade, yet feel obliged to complain about not feeling welcome, the tone of our posts, being told to shut up when they weren't, make deliberate mischaracterizations just to stir up emotions, and just basically whining, were the problem.

AT's policies, like the culture I mentioned, are too restrictive for proper debate anyway. Hurt feelings get priority, even when, as is usually the case, the cause was imagined or exaggerated.

As Michael Hurst pointed out here or there or both, most of the posters who come to the Historical Research forum at AT are not sincere; they're not really interested in Tarot History. They are either looking for affirmation for a pet theory, or coming to argue with those they see as the Establishment. The vast majority are not looking for facts and competent opinions, or, in other words, coming to LEARN.
I always loved this forum; I joined early. I've continued reading although I've stopped participating. The "building blocks" thread helped establish a tone of intolerance. Members whose views I found most interesting and informative from have been discouraged from posting. The tarot history topics pursued here seem narrowly defined and the discussions too often turn mean-spirited.

I don't see that the forum has developed a consensus on tarot history among people with superior methods and expertise. I see some people basically ignored, and others intimidated and battered by relentless personal attacks in a macho game of dominance. This has nothing to do with academic rigor or scholarly discourse.

You can easily introduce newcomers to a generally acceptable summary of tarot history by sending them to the tarotpedia article which I believe is written by mjhurst, or recommending a readily-available book like Huson's Mystical Origins of the Tarot.
As for the future of this forum: I see a naive and limited view of disciplinary research.

First, tarot history is not of particular interest to historians for good reason. And it interests us for our own individual reasons. Dummett got into it as a distraction from what he thought was really important. Some people here come from an interest in divination or an occult (and occult-ish) motivation. Others don't.


"Good" reason? The only reason I can think of is that Tarot history had no sound basis before 1980, and the history of playing cards in general was not that much better. The very study of leisure activities, games, those trivial aspects of culture, is generally held to have been given its theoretical starting point with Huizinga's Homo Ludens in 1944, of which the English translation only appeared in 1955.

The "good" reason might boil down to all the bullshit that surrounds anything to do with Tarot, of which so little knows or utilizes Dummett, so that a serious historian who might be tempted to look into the matter gives up before finding a source which points him in the right direction. In the last decade especially, with the spread of the Web and countless sources of varying quality leading to the solid information, this should no longer be a problem. But a decade is not long enough for us to see the results in the publications of important historians of Renaissance culture. And it will still be a very small part. Historians of games of course (e.g. Parlett, Depaulis, Ortalli) know it well, and have for decades; as for Art historians, popular playing cards, as examples of prints, may not be an important focus of many, but of course the 15th century luxury cards have been the object of dozens of competent books and papers, all of which utilize the most up-to-date information.

Another good reason might be the difficulty of adding to what is already known. Some of the most important discoveries in decades have been made in the past few months. They have clarified the earliest history quite a bit, while raising plenty of other questions, but Franco Pratesi, who lived right there in Florence, had to be the one to do it. Otherwise, it might have taken years or more, if ever, for someone to find what he did.

The funny thing is that the theoretical framework described by Dummett in 1980 is not altered at all, just some details have been clarified.

So, actually, I don't know what you mean by "good reason". It's trivial, so it doesn't figure prominently in studies of Renaissance culture; it's a trivial part of European cultural history in general, and so obscure that primary research is difficult and mostly unrewarding; finally, there is a consensus - Tarot was invented as a card game in the first half of the 15th century in northern Italy, and in the late 18th century began to used for esoteric speculation. Most responsible historians, who might want to say anything about Tarot, are content with that.

Historians of esoteric culture, or that aspect of the history of ideas, can take over from there, and again Dummett (along with Depaulis and Decker) provides the framework. But here, at least, there is a lot more work that can be done, since, at the very least, there is so much more source material.
Second, in the history and the humanities, logic is not the final word on truth. Much of what is presented as historical evidence here is not impressive. Overall, much of what is presented here as rigorous logic, airtight argumentation, and examination of meaningful evidence does not indicate objectivity and good judgment.
Thanks for the lecture, Professor. Actually Dummett was a professional logician, just in case you didn't know.

Please don't patronize us.

Of COURSE we bloody well know that logic is not the final word on truth. Logic is a way to make and evaluate arguments. Truth is not its purview - soundness is. Most of what we do here is argue. Occasionally new "truth" is presented, which becomes the premise for more argumentation. This is how the disclipine - and it really is a discipline, if smart people like you would take it more seriously - progresses.

Also, in general about the tone of argumentation, if you can give me an example of a field in the humanities that has progressed by open welcome to anyone who wants to say anything, gentle discussion of every opinion, supreme deference to participants' feelings, refusal to be limited to any paradigm or standard methodology, and without expecting a demonstration of a grasp of the basic facts and opinions in the field before being taken seriously - RATHER than by often acrimonious, and logical, debate and plenty of hurt feelings to go around - then please tell me what it is.
Third, tarot history should be interdisciplinary and here it is not. Almost no one demonstrates expertise or training in art history. The actual images and physical printed cards get only superficial treatment. So claims to know the most important parts of the tarot history story are incomplete at best.
Again, thanks for the lecturing, but really, Michael Hurst, not exactly a negligible voice in the Tarot history wilderness, has been promoting the Warburg school methodology for a decade now. At a rough guess, about half, maybe more, of his blog is devoted to discussing Art history methodology and guys like Erwin Panofsky and Ernst Gombrich, AND ITS RELEVANCE TO TAROT HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION.

I am happy to call him my master in these studies; he introduced me to them and impressed me with their relevance by applying this methodology to the interpretation of the Tarot trumps. My own background and training is in documentary history, literature and textual criticism, so the iconographic part was lacking when I began a decade ago.

That there are so few Tarot historians - maybe 7 or 8 people qualify, at most, as true experts of the earliest part, and about the same if not fewer of the 16th and 17th centuries in specific countries and regions (this is excluding local historians who might know every detail of a particular cardmaker or kind of playing cards), and the study usually involves documents rather than interpreting the imagery, so art history is not particularly important. It is only important to Tarot because some of us are sure the Trump sequence has a coherent meaning, and we want to know what it means. This is where Warburg school methodology comes in. It doesn't hurt to be able to identify individual images, and until recently, with the Web again, it was nearly impossible for a non-specialist within reach of an Art library to begin to get "interdisciplinary" with the obscure field of Tarot history, even if it were conceivable before, say, 1980.

At least one person did - Gertrude Moakley. Her method and conclusions remain a model of interdisciplinary study of Tarot history, and she corresponded with Panofsky himself about Tarot. If you don't have her 1966 book "The Tarot Cards Painted By Bonifacio Bembo for the Visconti Sforza Family", then get it, assuming you are serious.
If someone is exploring a line of thinking you don't believe, and you've asked relevant questions, given good reasons for thinking they are mistaken, and have no interest in helping develop that perspective--that's where scholars and intellectuals stop.
That IS where we stop. The problems always begin when THEY don't, and squeal for attention in places where squealing is the way to get things done.
To persist, to ridicule, to get angry or frustrated that one person doesn't take your point--this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth or learning.

I'm sad if the consensus is to emphasize an "agree or shut up" approach and to abandon the ideal that "The forum encourages freedom and independence of view, together with tolerance and care of others." I hope not.

--peace out--
I'm afraid that if anyone bothered to look up all the threads that have degenerated at AT, I will bet... well, I'll bet a lot of something, that ALL of the time, the "persistence, ridiculing, anger and frustration that the person doesn't take your point" actually comes from the person who feels rejected by the so-called self-defined arrogant know-it-all "serious historians".

In all my time at AT, which is 9 years now, I never heard the question: "Hi. I'm new to Tarot history. Can someone tell me the facts, the major opinions, what is known and unknown? Any reading suggestions with up-to-date and trustworthy historical information? Thanks
- a student of Tarot history."

And some opinions - or rather, baseless assertions - ARE ridiculous. Like the principle of "Hitchens' Razor" says: "What can asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

When dismissal isn't enough, and someone persists in asserting something ridiculous, ridicule is not uncalled for.
Image

Re: Moved from AT

#58
hi Debra,

one might wish to have better and more qualified people in the Internet Tarot History discussion, but just for practical reasons one has to deal with the persons, who come, who have some intentions inside the possible themes and who somehow are capable to organize themselves in it.
With those, who do not come, you hardly can have any exchange. Naturally you can attempt to communicate with them per email, but for those of them who do not answer to email, it's hopeless.

One might desire, that more qualified persons from art history would participate, but if they don't come, it stays a dream, and if they come, they ALSO have a lot to learn to adapt the essentials of the research situation.

Chaotic, as the situation might occasionally appear, there was never more progress before in Tarot History than in the past years. The basis for this progress was naturally the internet, the research possibilities have exploded and it's essential, that somebody uses them, instead of experiencing Internet just at it's more funny sides, as a lot of the public does.

I've done some research about Chess History in the web, and, as far the web is concerned, Tarot History needn't to hide. I think, there's more about Tarot History than there is about chess history - though Tarot is definitely the smaller and more exotic game. So it's difficult to state, that "all is only bad" with current Tarot History.
Well, if some are so unwise, to focus on the bad things,they naturally will find enough.

For your report, what I did ...
I saw what Huck did that got him a temporary suspension. The moderator briefly locked a couple of threads and posted a request for patience while they set up a new subforum. Huck did not approve, and he quickly opened a new thread inviting people to continue discussing their complaints. He then suggested that people come here to talk about tarot history and linked directly to a thread here where he and others are complaining about AT.


... I actually presented it with a fine difference:
So far I understand, I've broken the rules, I've talked about moderators here, and possibly the reaction will (possibly) be, that the post is killed, the thread closed etc.. Maybe.

It's not really a problem. I can publish elsewhere.

Actually I've found a "fitting thread" here

This would be then the third place for "critique on the Old Tarot Research Forum". And this can be expanded. We're not interested to expand this - actually it's easier, when problems are solved, where they appear.

This "don't talk about the moderators rule" is not healthy for a Forum (at least not this one). Problems must be named and one can solve them, that's just my humble opinion. It had been not a fair step to close here three threads ... actually it's good, that somebody got an insight, that this does not work (for the moment for two of them). Thank you.
There is a Tarot history tradition, that the members solve their problems without moderation. And usually Tarot historians are experienced and strong enough to arrange a calm down of the temper, if necessary.

Maybe "don't talk about the moderators" makes sense in other parts of the Aeclectic Forum. Here it's poison. It's also poison to close threads.

So think well about that, what you will do, and become wise about the variants of communicative life.
They've closed 3 threads, I wrote an internal protest, I got no answer. I've documented this process. When I say, that I could publish elsewhere, that hardly could be anything new in the world. I didn't say, go to here, actually I said, if they would attempt to make me quiet, I would have a place, where I could talk.
Look, there were other situations in the world, where local institutions attempted to limit the rights of authors. And there were other authors, who felt, that they had to do something about it.
Naturally a publisher (and a Forum owner is a sort of publisher) has ALSO rights, and can ALSO decide, what he/she wants and what he wants not. If there is an agreement between author and publisher, some publishing might happen and if there's no agreement, it happens not.
They made a wordless decision. They banned me. I got no answer to my last two posts. I think, I've 2000 posts of totally 14.000 in the Historical Research forum. I've the suspicion, that this was NOT very polite. Maybe they interpret my activity also as not very polite.
Well ... what's more work: Writing 2000 posts or hosting an automatic forum? Well, that's also work, but I think, that writing 2000 posts (and often very long ones) is a little bit more. But NO AGREEMENT is just "no agreement" and so let's make some positive decisions, how Tarot History shall develop in the future.

**************

I saw, that Michael made some rude words about Debra recently. Michael also attacked me not very politely ... :-) ... well, me for my part, I smile.
In the medieval courts they had the "Fool"-function. Persons, who were allowed to give some critique even to the King or Emperor, often with rude methods. It was something, which developed from the triumphal processions in old Rome, where the triumphing Imperator or general had a beggar or slave at this chariot, who whispered into his ears, that in these glorious moments he shouldn't forget, that he isn't god.
Jess Karlin played this role, Michael occasionally attempts to imitate it. It has its function. And Michael occasionally offers other valuable contributions. Anyway ... writers in internet are not really controllable, and somehow that's a good part in the process. And somehow one has to arrange with it.

"Take it with humor", had been always a good decision.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Moved from AT

#59
Hi Huck, Robert,

I am not interested in defending AT's policies. Some of them make sense to me, and some don't. I have a lot of experience running internet discussions. It can be difficult to find the right rules and approach for healthy discussion. I only brought it up because no one here was clear about how Huck came to be suspended. The AT message says that Huck linked to his own forum. I doubt that they care if this Tarot History Forum "belongs" to Huck or is simply a second home for him. Huck linked to a thread where Ross was talking about whether AT, with too many people he characterizes as insistently stupid, should be boycotted as punishment.

Huck, I think it was both unnecessary and disrespectful to start a new thread encouraging more criticism when they asked for people to take a break and be patient. That's my own opinion. Your relationship with AT is for you to work out and I hope you can find a satisfactory resolution. I laid out what I knew of the situation here a few minutes ago only because several people came here confused and upset to hear you are suspended. It's only fair to give them the background so they can make their own judgment. At any rate, I wish you the best with your research.

As for attending to personal attacks--thanks, Huck, for your suggestions, and not to worry. I do not take those comments personally because they have nothing to do with me, what I actually said, and what I believe.

regards,
Debra

Re: Moved from AT

#60
PS:

Robert, yes, of course. I do mean to be constructive. You put a lot of good work into this forum, and it's been the best place to discuss tarot history since you and jmd left behind the AT history forum.

In my view, many missed opportunities--ideas and information well worth exploring have been closed off. No I am not talking about UFOs inspiring Tarot archetypes to pass on the wisdom of ancient Egyptian ascended masters as revealed to Crowley, the code evident to those who do runic and gematric analysis of crop circle patterns. I was interested to see how Swiryn tried to work out his hypothesis (not successfully, I think) and I am interested in an older European way of reading with the Soprafino deck,--it sounds like it dates to the early 1900's at least. I like when people are free to explore their ideas, whether or not they seem (or are) mistaken, and when people treat each other with civility and respect. That's all.

regards,
Debra

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron