"When I think I understand what is intended I ask, do I understand correctly the main point intended?" If the answer is no, I seek further clarification by asking "Are you referring to this?" or "Do you mean that?" When the answer is yes, I ask again, "Is that the main point?" If it is, I then ask, "Is that all I need to know about it?"" -Carol K Anthony

I've had a habit of asking Yi for clarification in this manner. So this thread concerns asking follow-up questions to a reading, specifically when those questions are only seeking to clarify something about the initial reading. I feel that this habit, for me, has resulted in a lot of confusion, train wrecks, tail chasing, and tying myself in knots. In the worst cases I will end up with an entire conversation of readings that are meaningless because the entire line of questioning is derived from a misinterpretation that I may have deluded myself into thinking that Yi has "confirmed" was the meaning of the initial reading.

Conversely, if it this habit has ever helped to clarify a reading, I don't remember when. I think there is something to be said for restraint, being selective about the questions I ask, choosing a follow-up question only once I have something of a handle on what the initial reading says (and not asking for reassurance or clarification in it).

This is probably one of the two or three biggest traps I've fallen into, and I'm feeling like I want to swear this off altogether, not do that anymore.

For this reason, want to know what others' thoughts or experiences are, good or bad.

I ask for clarification rarely and judiciously, most recently when I was surprised and a little upset by an answer. I didn't ask for a second opinion; more along the lines of, “was it me?” Usually I just ponder the answer awhile, maybe come back to it the next day.

In my opinion, Carol Anthony goes way overboard with her three-coin questioning style. Imagine peppering an actual person with those kind of questions all the time. But maybe that method works for some people.

—Russell

I have a good regard for Carol Anthony's interpretative skills but if I attempted her multiple question series, as outlined above, I'm quite certain I would end up in a complete nightmare of confusion. With my day to day readings I will sometimes repeat the reading if I'm not sure my understanding is correct, I don't re-word it, I simply add the prefix PGFG (Please Give Further Guidance) and go ahead. Alternatively, instead of a second physical reading, I will often use the Parallel Nuclear Progression, calculated from the initial reading and giving a nuclear progression whose "essence" is exactly parallel to the meaning of the initial reading. It will remove any lingering doubt or uncertainty but it has gone down here on Clarity like a lead balloon so I'm afraid I don't give out any further details any more. Peter