Can I count on him? 35 changes to 4

[Freedda]

A human being came to us with a problem and asked for our help. She left feeling disrespected and probably won’t return and may even abandon her study of the I Ching. I see plenty of reason to have remorse.

As the first one to respond, I take this as a lesson for myself in how I could maybe made my response more accessible for this person, and said what I did differently.

I never made any reference to whom this person was sleeping with (it didn't see relevant to the query) - and when I read others mentioning it, it felt like an accusation to me. I did, however use the term 'squirrely rodent' which was from my Yi translation. My intent - and I tried to explained this - was to say that something didn't seem quite right, or completely honest, or on the up-and-up with how this person was communicating with the other two people involved. I think that's a valid assessment and interpretation (though others may see things differently). I just think I could have made it seem less of an accusation.

As to her asking her roommate to leave, my take was based on the fact that she referred to him as 'a friend' and it wasn't important to me whose flat it was, or if they were or had been lovers, or if he was a tenant, etc. I was trying to convey that she may want to treat him more as a friend, and less as someone she needs 'support' in removing. Again, I think that's a valid response, but I can certainly learn to say it better.

As to the 'why' of why this person left, yes they could have been offended. But it could also have been any number of reasons - perhaps that she came with an expectation that the Yi would tell her what she was doing was 'right' and that her boyfriend would support it. Those types of expectations and assumptions are not on us, but maybe I can be more aware that people coming here do not have the same level of understand as some of us have (or think we have ) about the Yi.


Best, David.

 

[Trojina]

Ridiculous to take it to the moderation forum, Good grief how ridiculous.

Why not just persecute Moss Elk and be done with it !

 

[Freedda]

Ridiculous to take it to the moderation forum, Good grief how ridiculous. Why not just persecute Moss Elk and be done with it !

??? I am not sure what you mean here? Did someone suggest that this needed to be discussed in another forum? I missed that (and we may have crossed posted just now).

 

[Trojina]

Yes crossed posts was responding to post 31, Liselle's post.

 

[equinox]

This has escalated here. I am sorry for all those misunderstandings. I will reply later to the parts of the thread that address me. I hope the thread won't be closed in the meantime. Nevertheless good afternoon/morning/night to you all -- Moss, Trojina, rosada, Liselle and Freedda.

 

[moss elk]

A human being came to us with a problem and asked for our help.

At least I didn't recommend that she read The Secret or buy some Ormis,
Or do visualizations for what was probably early onset schizophrenia, instead of seeking real help.

 

[Trojina]

But do you think you can mind read the motives of others via Yi ? Or convict others via Yi ? That's not connected to this thread but speaking generally.

I hate it when people tell other people 'he is having an affair' on the back of a Yi answer - I find that a terrible travesty of Yi because they don't know so they shouldn't put bad ideas in someone's head without any factual basis.

So to me that is worse, far worse than saying 'are you still having sex with him ?'


I really don't care about passers through. For what, 17 years, I have seen regular respondents pumping out their best replies to often be treated like nothing. People don't go back to threads they asked for help on, they use someone for readings for a decade and then flounce off and delete their account because someone said something wrong, all the time acting just as if they were customers who we serve. it's crazy, the imbalance is crazy - ridiculous - so I don't give a damn, they can apply for a refund -


So Moss has answered 100s of people since he's been here, for nothing. Yet when one of them hardly invested enough to write a decent first post, flounces off with an 'FU' everyone blames him like the person who left was some precious customer to be served for free.


Eh ? No it's screwed up - the whole weight of things is screwed up here.

It's always absurd to blame someone for someone else leaving and it's not fair given the regular respondent has served a thousand people for nothing over the years.

Deleting one's account is stupid and pointless.
No one cares so you are the loser
So if you delete your account to make a big point and guilt trip someone you don't succeed
If you delete your account you can't use the forum

Durrr you should have thought of that

Why people fall into this drama of 'OMG she left because of him' I do not know.

Toodlepip - Next------

 

[moss elk]

This isn't the first time you've jumped very quickly to negative judgements about someone,

I agree.
We should remember that there is judgement and there is sentencing.
When I say something judgemental,
sometimes I judge right, sometimes I judge wrong. (my scorecard. which you can view in the archives, is greatly weighted toward accurate judgement. 95%?)
Now, Being judgemental without a repercussion (sentencing) is not so severe actually. I am engaging in conversation, not chopping a head off.

 

[moss elk]

But do you think you can mind read the motives of others via Yi ?

I know I can.

And I remember the time I was interacting with the biggest liar I had ever met. She became deathly affraid when she witnessed Yi work, and yelled, "you better not spy on me!"
(Becaushe she had something to hide.)
(I didn't spy on her)
(but I should have!)

 

[Trojina]

I know I can.

And I remember the time I was interacting with the biggest liar I had ever met. She became deathly affraid when she witnessed Yi work, and yelled, "you better not spy on me!"
(Becaushe she had something to hide.)
(I didn't spy on her)
(but I should have!)

You can't on a forum. You can't say to someone 'Yi says your husband is having an affair' that's a lie and it's an irresponsible thing to say given you have no idea, yet people do it. I can't recall if you've gone near that but I do recall arguing with you over the certainty you had about 8.3 meaning 'bad person' or something as if that was the only thing it could ever mean because that is what it had meant in your own experience.

 

[Trojina]

Moss Elk, I have to say I agree with Equinox here. Edited: And Rosada.

This isn't the first time you've jumped very quickly to negative judgements about someone

But it's equally harmful to cleave to ideas of sweetness and light when answering people. They can lie to you you know. And maybe the version of events they portray isn't exactly what happened. But if you always take their side, without using a bit of 'reading between the lines' (which is what Moss did here) when they are actually in the wrong, then you are actually supporting them in their unfortunate actions against other people.

So I think you can do harm by offering readings to people, being on their side when actually they are lying and screwing up other people's lives.


I've always thought the whole thing of 'judgement is bad' is like saying having any intelligence is bad. Dropping your discerning capacity just because someone asks for readings from you is no the way to go because in the end you reading for them is meant to serve the greater good not just the benefit of the one you read for who may be lying, telling half the truth and so on. You might have to start at a position of trust obviously but no reading can always be on the basis of the 'querent is always right' they aren't and Yi isn't there to shore up someone's fantasy life.

 

[Liselle]

You can't on a forum. You can't say to someone 'Yi says your husband is having an affair' that's a lie and it's an irresponsible thing to say given you have no idea, yet people do it. I can't recall if you've gone near that but I do recall arguing with you over the certainty you had about 8.3 meaning 'bad person' or something as if that was the only thing it could ever mean because that is what it had meant in your own experience.

But it's equally harmful to cleave to ideas of sweetness and light when answering people. They can lie to you you know. [etc]

Both true.

Ways around it? Um...
- ask (non-conclusion-drawing) questions to clarify things?
- if it's the reading that's causing doubts to arise, ask things in terms of the reading (e.g., "35.4 can sometimes mean keeping secrets - is there anything like that happening here?") Of course the person could deny it. But at some point things might start to crack.
- if in serious doubt about someone, or how to proceed, maybe do a reading of one's own... "What should I know about this as I'm responding," or ask Yi for guidance, or "What can you tell me about my suspicions?" or something. I'm remembering my thread in RC (end of this post) where I was suspicious of my reading's protagonist's motives and Yi said 33, and it turned out "withdrawing from this idea" was exactly right, nothing like that was going on.

 

[Trojina]

I think the way around it is simply not to do it. Don't make false statements such as 'your reading tells me your husband is having an affair'.

I don't understand your post or why you need to find a way round it. You aren't in the habit of doing this anyway are you ?

Also the 2 statements you quoted of mine don't belong together.

One is about making false statements like facts. No one is in a position, on a forum, to tell someone their spouse is having an affair from a Yi answer, not unless the querent has already said they have reason to think so.


The other is to do with your own judgements/feelings/intuition about who you are reading for. Sometimes you may be wrong but you find that out in due course.

Why would you put them together then talk about ways round it

I don't think doing readings about how to respond is necessary, not unless you are being paid a hefty sum of money to do it anyway, which I'm not, don't know about you.

You may be making my statements far more complicated than I intended them to be.

 

[hilary]

Well, this is an interesting thread. (Thank you to the various people who alerted me to it.)

I find it completely understandable that Padma left. It was that or stick around and try to persuade a couple of complete strangers that she wasn't a lying slut. I wouldn't want to spend the time - would you?

But the discussion has moved on, so let's generalise. What is a good way to approach a querent when you're suspicious of her, or think she's doing/proposing something immoral, or just have a bad feeling about her and find her a bit dodgy?

I'd suggest...

That if you are not sure you're getting all the background, you ask for clarification. Actually asking, 'Do you really not have a sexual relationship with this other man?' would be less offensive than telling her she's lying. Or indeed asking, 'Why not sound your bf out about this?'

(Of course 35.4 does not tell you for sure that she's lying.)

The point of this would be either
a) to be able to interpret the reading once things are clarified, or
b) to decide you don't want to interpret a reading for this person.

But if you find you are judging the querent harshly - you're irritated with them, or you think they're prevaricating, or you just don't like how they're acting (on or off the forum) - then don't read for them. Don't get involved on their thread at all. Approximately 99 times out of 100 you will be able to decide this without posting anything.

An advantage of this guideline: it doesn't matter in the least whether your view of this person is justified. Other members may disagree with you and want to help them - or other members may all agree with you, in which case the thread will go unanswered. Either way, you've moved on and don't need to get involved at all.

Recap: if you don't like them, don't reply to them.

I think if we stuck to that, quite a lot of messes could be/ could have been avoided, including this one. What do you think?

 

[Trojina]

I find it completely understandable that Padma left. It was that or stick around and try to persuade a couple of complete strangers that she wasn't a lying slut.

Where does this 'slut' idea come from ? Asking someone if they are having sex with someone really doesn't make them a 'slut' - it is okay to have sex with different people. I don't think he called her a 'slut' I think that is in the mind of the beholder.

I think if we stuck to that, quite a lot of messes could be/ could have been avoided, including this one. What do you think?

I think it's a nice idea but it's over simplifying. Over simplifying because of the nature of how things are, who answers who etc etc And it isn't a question of 'not liking' people, I really don't think Moss asked that because he didn't like Padma so that whole basis of 'this happens because a doesn't like b' is not accurate and never has been.

He never called her a slut anyway but some here seem to think if she had sex with the other guy she'd be a slut which I find a bit weird.

 

[Tohpol]

Jumping to negative judgements and being too sweet and light aren't conducive to exchange since they both camouflage the real issues.

But personally, I'd prefer a perceived "negative judgement" every time as it gives you the opportunity to see something from a completely different angle that may have been a blindspot, which is frankly, very often the case.

It also let's you observe yourself and whether or not you capable of contemplating an answer as opposed to indulging in emotional reaction and histrionics.

But both give an opportunity to see what the respondee is made of from everyone's perspective. Politeness and courtesy is a given of course, even if you smell BS. Clearly, however, padma's "FU" reply speaks volumes. I don't think Clarity needs to cultivate a climate where people are offended by opinions delivered in blunt terms, certainly not in deference for those incapable of critical thinking and reasoned debate.

The fact that she has departed in a huff based on a post on a forum suggests to me that her threshold for being offended is extremely low. Either that or she can't take an unpalatable truth - the two often go together.

Either way, it is indeed a storm in tea-cup and she can go her merry way having lost an opportunity to learn something. Such is life.

But if you find you are judging the querent harshly - you're irritated with them, or you think they're prevaricating, or you just don't like how they're acting (on or off the forum) - then don't read for them.

I don't think we'd be doing too many reading interpretations if we stuck to that rule!

 

[hilary]

Where does this 'slut' idea come from ? Asking someone if they are having sex with someone really doesn't make them a 'slut' - it is okay to have sex with different people. I don't think he called her a 'slut' I think that is in the mind of the beholder.

What do you call someone who's cheating on her steady boyfriend with her housemate? That's what he said she was doing.

 

[Trojina]

What do you call someone who's cheating on her steady boyfriend with her housemate? That's what he said she was doing.

I certainly wouldn't call her a 'slut', I find that rather archaic. I'd call her someone deceitful, confused or perhaps someone who likes having sex with 2 men at the same time. But I saw it that she had perhaps had a relationship with the guy in the house, not that she still was, that's why he was asking.

 

[Trojina]

however, padma's "FU" reply speaks volumes.

Quite.

 

[moss elk]

But if you find you are judging the querent harshly - you're irritated with them, or you think they're prevaricating, or you just don't like how they're acting (on or off the forum) - then don't read for them.

Gosh, what a mess.
I didn't have any negative feelings about padma at all during my first post.
In truth, I simultaneously had a feeling of affection and suspicion. I said little mouse. (I call my daughter that too!) and gosh, I love her and am ssuspicious of her often. I know I've caught her in a lie when she blows up...

I apologize if I ruffled anyones feathers.
I do think the conversation has become productive now.

Balance: Not to harsh and not too sweet..... like baby bears porridge.
Don't poke the bear and don't give it a sugar coma.

 

[Trojina]

But if you find you are judging the querent harshly - you're irritated with them, or you think they're prevaricating, or you just don't like how they're acting (on or off the forum) - then don't read for them. Don't get involved on their thread at all. Approximately 99 times out of 100 you will be able to decide this without posting anything.

An advantage of this guideline: it doesn't matter in the least whether your view of this person is justified. Other members may disagree with you and want to help them - or other members may all agree with you, in which case the thread will go unanswered. Either way, you've moved on and don't need to get involved at all.

Recap: if you don't like them, don't reply to them.

The underlying question to you is why are we meant to please the passing stranger who says 'FU' at the drop of a hat ?

I don't get it. Why are we meant to be making them happy ? By 'them' I mean the careless fly bys who use and and just go 'FU' when they don't get their fix


Basically you are saying 'don't do anything to upset them' but why not, who's customer are they exactly ? They aren't yours and they aren't ours so what is all this whole 'the customer is always right' thing that's going on about ?


It's like you are automatically saying 'don't upset Padma' to regular respondents but can you say why not ? Do we owe her something ? Do you owe her something ?

She's offered nothing, not even a coherent first post, and so if anybody replies to her that's how it is. if they reply with some of their feelings showing that's how it is. There'd be one helluva lot of unanswered threads if we only answered those we had good feelings about as Tohpol said

I don't think we'd be doing too many reading interpretations if we stuck to that rule!

 

[Tohpol]

Well, it was a lack of finesse on Moss' part perhaps, but no biggie imo. It was her choice whether to be terminally offended or engage.

Being exposed to negative things of this type always offers the chance to face them, to stand your corner and defend your honour so to speak, rather than deliver an expletive and run away - exactly like a "squirrely rodent". Which rather underlies the initial speculation.

It always makes me wonder how such people navigate through life if they can barely stand a harsh judgement on a divination forum.

 

[hilary]

The underlying question to you is why are we meant to please the passing stranger who says 'FU' at the drop of a hat ?

I don't get it. Why are we meant to be making them happy, what about us ?

I don't think it makes anyone happy to get embroiled in a mess of suspicion and hostility, does it? Who here enjoys giving their time to someone they dislike?

The 'don't read for people you don't like' principle also has the pleasant side-effect of protecting querents from hostile 'helpers', true, but that doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

 

[hilary]

Well, it was a lack of finesse on Moss' part perhaps, but no biggie imo. It was her choice whether to be terminally offended or engage.

Being exposed to negative things of this type always offers the chance to face them, to stand your corner and defend your honour so to speak, rather than deliver an expletive and run away - exactly like a "squirrely rodent". Which rather underlies the initial speculation.

It always makes me wonder how such people navigate through life if they can barely stand a harsh judgement on a divination forum.

Well, for me, I think it would depend on how invested I was in the relationship with my accuser. If someone whose opinion I valued called me a cheat, I would want to 'defend my honour'. But if... hm, I am never going to be discussing my sex life in a public forum, so I'll have to come up with a thought experiment...

If I were having problems with a script I'd bought, and posted in the FB users group for the script to ask for help, and the second reply said, 'Did you ever get round to paying for this script you stole?' then what would I do? If my name and this accusation were out in public, I'd go to considerable trouble to clear my name, true. But if they weren't, I would probably do what Padma did and just leave the group in disgust. Pretty sure I would not be thinking, 'Oh good, here is a chance to face some negativity!' I mean... would you?

 

[equinox]

@Trojina

You have decided she left because of misogyny but unless she tells us that we don't actually know.

It is true, that was my personal impression and I may be wrong. It was the first thing I thought when I read her "FU" and saw that she left. I disagreed with Moss, who suggested that her deletion was the consequence of feeling caught being involved in shady business. You are right that we can't know why she left: it could have been the accusations or the fact that no one gave her a really hopeful interpretation, or it may be a mixture of all of this. Anyhow, it was an emotional overreaction, maybe silly but human and understandable. It is very easy and common on the Internet to break all ties in the heat of the moment. But since I know how much heart and energy you put into dealing with questions here, I understand that you get annoyed when someone takes the easy way out and just goes.

All he said was 'are you still having sex' what's the big deal with that

Because it was not sounding like an unbiased question, but already half an assumption that she's being dishonest towards us.

@Fredda

I never made any reference to whom this person was sleeping with (it didn't see relevant to the query) - and when I read others mentioning it, it felt like an accusation to me.

That's not what I meant when I mentioned you. I found the following of your words speculative:
„So, from how you described it, you have a few secrets you're keeping: you haven't told your boyfriend you want him to move in, and you haven't told your friend that you're going to kick hin out of his home.“

She never described it like that. It was what you conclude from her words in connection with your interpretation of 35.4. What she said might well be a fresh idea that she wanted to discuss with us here, not a lengthy sneaking around. Who can know that?
Written communication usually conveys too little meaning, so that our impression is always strongly influenced by our own assumptions. This applies to every form of communication, but especially to written communication.

@Moss

However, having sex and sleeping in the same room have nothing to do with each other. The fact that she mentioned the sleeping quarters at all is one of several things that roused my suspicions.

That's too hair-splitting in my perception. Perhaps she said this, because she herself knows that this is not an unimportant detail and wanted to anticipate possible inquiries. That doesn't have to mean she's dodging the information about whether sex is involved. Maybe she finds it more elegant and discreet to say "We have separate bedrooms“ than to say „We don't have sex“.

Gosh, what a mess.
I didn't have any negative feelings about padma at all during my first post.
In truth, I simultaneously had a feeling of affection and suspicion. I said little mouse. (I call my daughter that too!) and gosh, I love her and am ssuspicious of her often.

Okay, you didn't mean any harm, I know you a little and believe you -- but think it can be misunderstood. Very few women would like to be called a rodent while at the same time being asked if they really do not have sex with their roommate -- especially by a stranger. Even if it was not meant badly, in my opinion it was obtrusive.

By the way, I value very much that you always have the grandeur to stand by your mistakes and correct yourself. This is not a very common attitude.
I appreciate you and all of the members engaging in this thread as long-time forum participants who make a lot of effort to offer good and helpful interpretations here. Of course misunderstandings and mistakes can always happen, whoever's finally to blame. Please be certain, even if I criticized, this does not detract from my appreciation of Moss or any other forum member. I didn't want to appear hostile.

 

[Trojina]

I don't think it makes anyone happy to get embroiled in a mess of suspicion and hostility, does it? Who here enjoys giving their time to someone they dislike?

The 'don't read for people you don't like' principle also has the pleasant side-effect of protecting querents from hostile 'helpers', true, but that doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

These things really do not always happen because someone dislikes someone, there's more to it than that and I feel you could jettison that idea, it's just not the reality.

A whole lot more - for a start intelligent engagement with both the querent and the reading might sometimes mean the querent goes off in a huff because someone understood something about them and they didn't want that. That's happened so many times and every time you say 'don't read for people you don't like' when something else entirely has happened. I've seen 'querents' hurl abuse at people who interpret too well, who interpret honestly, not because they 'don't like' the querent but because they can interpret them and their reading too well. So just saying 'don't answer people you don't like' misses a whole lot what you actually need to include is

"..don't answer people who clearly don't want the your truth or insight about them or their situation.." you see that is entirely different and we don't always know that at the beginning and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'not liking' people which makes it sound like it's a playground scenario, way too superficial an analysis I think.


This isn't 'don't play with people you don't like' it's actually 'figure out who doesn't want your insights in advance and don't answer them in case you upset them and you can't upset them because ….' well we don't know why really and we don't know in advance who is or isn't going to take our replies amiss....and boy if they leave wow it is all our fault they left

Oh well at least I'm crystal clear where I stand on that.

 

[rosada]

While I think I understand your sentiments, Tohpol, because many times I have been called out for something I appeared to be saying in a post but hadn't intended and thus it was good I was questioned else I would not have realized I had given the wrong impression, or else that I didn't realize there was a totally different way of seeing things and it was good to read these alternative viewpoints - but even so, I agree with Hilary, if you can't make sense of the question ask for clarification and even if you do feel you understand the question but doubt the posters sincerity, realize it's not our job to be the Inner Truth police and especially it's inappropriate to address people you don't have arelationship with as "mouse" of "ringtailed rodent" or even "dear one." Such names suggest a familiarity the poster may be uncomfortable with and create a situation where agreeing with the advice also implies the poster has granted the adviser permission to speak to them in these belittling terms.

Why should we assume Padma is leaving in a huff? Why should she be expected to respond with sweetness and light? I think her exit comment was a totally appropriate. Asking for advice and interpreting the I Ching should not be a blood sport.

So on that note:
To anyone I offended or led astray by my praise of The Secret, my questions about Ormus, or my interpretation of hexagram 15,
I sincerely apologize.

Rosada

 

[rosada]

Appears a lot of other comments were made while I was writing my reply. No biggie!
I'm going to close my computer now and get into the day! Have a good one!

 

[moss elk]

By the way, I value very much that you always have the grandeur to stand by your mistakes and correct yourself. This is not a very common attitude.

Thank you, that was kind of you to say.
That's 42-ish I think.

Well, I'm off to finishing school.
Be well everyone.

 

[equinox]

It always makes me wonder how such people navigate through life if they can barely stand a harsh judgement on a divination forum.

Maybe it hurts so much, because often people reveal their most intimate affairs here-- maybe even things they wouldn't dare to discuss with their family or friends. For whatever reason. I think people often are in a vulnerable position when they pour out their heart here.