The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » The Morality of Cold Readings? (59 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18325 Posts

Profile of IAIN
"if you don't heal what hurt you, you'll bleed on people who didn't cut you".
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18325 Posts

Profile of IAIN
Aha, here you go, point 2
http://jesusmeetskant.blogspot.com/2013/......html?m=1

that's enough from me...
Stewart
View Profile
New user
41 Posts

Profile of Stewart
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, IAIN wrote:
You tend to listen to family and friends because they tend to know your back story, your history and experiences... So there's a different form of trust in play. And you've also seen them deal with problems and life stuff too so it's entirely different. You know their track record for good and bad.


Yes. And family members give wrong advice all the time! And NOT everyone listens to family members! However, they are more likely to take advice from an unbiased stranger who seems to know what they are talking about. Somone they trust. Someone they sense is compassionate and kind. And they sense is worldly wise. Someone who is authoritative. Someone they like. And that person for better or worse is me.

My "qualifications"? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of readings over 32 years. I think I know what I am doing by now.
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18325 Posts

Profile of IAIN
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, Stewart wrote:

Yes. And family members give wrong advice all the time! And NOT everyone listens to family members! .


That was my point. You get to know each others track record. Not what they pretend or present.
Stunninger
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of Stunninger
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, Stunninger wrote:

“Know thyself” was written above the oracle’s entrance which seemed to be the crux of her approach, not telling people what they wanted to hear, not giving them easy answers, but leading them to find "the answer within".


That's interesting. I'm making connections rightly or wrongly, with Stoicism practices with thst term. And it's deeply psychological in nature, right? We need to understand our own motives before we can understand someone else's.


Agreed.
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2566 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
Cold reading threads always go mental. Fact.
Bill Cushman
View Profile
Inner circle
Florida
2821 Posts

Profile of Bill Cushman
"Cold reading threads always go mental. Fact." bevbevvybev

With that said:

I have been pondering the ethics of readings, once again, since watching and reading Sybil and have a bit to say on the topics introduced in this thread. I strongly disagree with the OP’s description of the work as not crossing lines and especially as “...positive, and he's not delving into anything negative.” Quite the opposite in my view and this is where issues of ethics are most relevant. I am not surprised that watching Sybil led Ravenspur to ask questions about the morality of readings.

I agree with Iain, Mr. Woolery, Stewart and others that this discussion is needed and its absence in the field a “sad omission.” Iain and I have briefly explored ethical readings in print together, but many of our thoughts have only been shared in correspondence. The fairly uncritical acceptance of approaches emphasized in Sybil suggest that this is a good time to say more.

I was struck by Mr. Woolery’s comment early on, “Like it or not, if you say things with confidence and they are (or seem) accurate, people will invest a certain amount of belief in what you say.” Accuracy (and, more importantly, what seems like accuracy) is achieved and enhanced via extremely effective manipulation and deception as taught on Sybil. The stated intention is to heighten belief just as Mr. Woolery describes.

I decided to share my thoughts on Sybil after speaking with a colleague, a therapist with a doctorate in marital and family therapy, about a client who became very upset after a Tarot reading. He described her as “coming undone,” when we spoke. She was ruminating and experiencing considerable anxiety two weeks later. She didn’t get a reading for any particular problem so was all the more unsettled when the psychic accurately delved into personal, negative experiences and predicted they wouldn’t be resolved in the immediate future. His overall accuracy only fueled her anxiety about his prediction, a consequence of the dynamic Mr. Woolery writes about above.

In the second reading demonstration on Sybil, Phedon elicits memories of difficult times from his sitter and then tells her he sees them continuing in the future. I can't say if this produced anxiety later on but the same dynamics are at play so the risk is real. In my opinion, this tactic certainly isn’t positive and clearly crosses a line. We don’t have to predict conflicts when there are so many other options available.

I don’t know if the reader my colleague discussed cheated to achieve the accuracy that validated his prediction for the sitter/client. We do know that Phedon cheats brilliantly to enhance both his accuracy and emotional connection to his sitters. This raises a host of ethical issues related to using deception, especially in the course of a reading. The techniques to influence emotion are particularly questionable.

Across a wide range of posters, there seems a broadly shared consensus that trafficking in tears shouldn’t be the goal of mentalists or readers. Yet a focus on at best sadness and, at worst, actual trauma pervades Sybil. This is no accident, in many instances it is the modus operandi of the methods Phedon is teaching. Heightened (negatively charged) affective states are used to make the sitters especially malleable.

One of the primary techniques taught involves the ratcheting up of negative emotions/memories to leverage and enhance a subsequent catharsis and create what I think is best understood as an "illusion of rapport." To be clear, the reactions of the sitters in the video that many people are praising are also illusions; what you see is not what the recipients of the readings are really getting.

How can it be? The sitters have been tricked into believing someone understands their deepest emotions and concerns. I suspect if they were tipped to the amount of sheer deceit used to create this illusion it would crumble hard and they'd feel betrayed. This is no small thing and I don’t see such a potential dynamic having a place in a performance and especially not in a reading. The readers I know disdain this kind of deception.

Phedon says he wants his work to be deeply emotional, cathartic and for the recipients to leave feeling better. His desired result is to relieve them of a burden. Noble goals to be sure but I don’t see them as appropriate for mentalism in the manner presented, especially conjuring with negative emotions and memories. I think the approach of building these up in order to leverage a catharsis is particularly misplaced and potentially harmful. And, as I wrote above, it can’t really achieve the desired ends described by Phedon. If this were therapy, many of the approaches taught would be considered unethical.

S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is an entire category devoted to a method of making women, and interestingly only women, dredge up bad memories and cry. That’s entertainment!

Phedon continues with S.C.R.E.W.E.D. with the woman already mentioned above and, as per the formula, she begins to cry. He tells her reliving the emotions is a good thing, she needs to remember so she can learn from her past and do differently in the future. The thing is, the only reason she is reliving this obviously bad memory is so that Phedon can teach us how to make others suffer through the same process.

The process once again involves the heightening of negatively charged memories followed by an engineered catharsis. Tears are the intended outcome.

This is made clear in the PDF. Phedon describes the reaction of a performer he obviously respects, Christophe, who says his only reservation about performing S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is the frequency of crying by the sitters. Phedon says that this is proof of the power of the routine and necessary for the ultimate catharsis. Again, that’s entertainment?

All this leads me to wonder just who the audience for Sybil really is. The methods appear to cater to performers who want to imitate the kind of experience that Stewart and others describe genuinely offering. Yet Stewart, and other ethical readers of his ilk, wouldn’t use the majority of the methods on Sybil, not with the emphasis on conflict, sadness and loss. Not with the use of deception and blatant emotional manipulation.

Many of the ideas Phedon shares aren’t the stuff of mentalism either. There is no need to harness negative, potentially traumatic memories and related emotions in the name of entertainment. Tears are no measure of our success and imagination, dreams and desires present more than enough fertile territory for performers.
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18325 Posts

Profile of IAIN
Beautifully and sincerely said... Bravo...
CGould
View Profile
New user
Canada
63 Posts

Profile of CGould
In a somewhat related topic...

Has anyone ever been on the site Fivver? Its for freelance services. I was on there this morning working on getting my girlfriends business logo redesigned and stumbled across the astrology and readings section while browsing the site. Literally hundreds of psychics promising "accurate" readings and potent spells. Good for a chuckle if you're bored. No offense intended if any of you are on there Smile
Robb
View Profile
Inner circle
1275 Posts

Profile of Robb
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, Bill Cushman wrote:
"Cold reading threads always go mental. Fact." bevbevvybev

With that said:

I have been pondering the ethics of readings, once again, since watching and reading Sybil and have a bit to say on the topics introduced in this thread. I strongly disagree with the OP’s description of the work as not crossing lines and especially as “...positive, and he's not delving into anything negative.” Quite the opposite in my view and this is where issues of ethics are most relevant. I am not surprised that watching Sybil led Ravenspur to ask questions about the morality of readings.

I agree with Iain, Mr. Woolery, Stewart and others that this discussion is needed and its absence in the field a “sad omission.” Iain and I have briefly explored ethical readings in print together, but many of our thoughts have only been shared in correspondence. The fairly uncritical acceptance of approaches emphasized in Sybil suggest that this is a good time to say more.

I was struck by Mr. Woolery’s comment early on, “Like it or not, if you say things with confidence and they are (or seem) accurate, people will invest a certain amount of belief in what you say.” Accuracy (and, more importantly, what seems like accuracy) is achieved and enhanced via extremely effective manipulation and deception as taught on Sybil. The stated intention is to heighten belief just as Mr. Woolery describes.

I decided to share my thoughts on Sybil after speaking with a colleague, a therapist with a doctorate in marital and family therapy, about a client who became very upset after a Tarot reading. He described her as “coming undone,” when we spoke. She was ruminating and experiencing considerable anxiety two weeks later. She didn’t get a reading for any particular problem so was all the more unsettled when the psychic accurately delved into personal, negative experiences and predicted they wouldn’t be resolved in the immediate future. His overall accuracy only fueled her anxiety about his prediction, a consequence of the dynamic Mr. Woolery writes about above.

In the second reading demonstration on Sybil, Phedon elicits memories of difficult times from his sitter and then tells her he sees them continuing in the future. I can't say if this produced anxiety later on but the same dynamics are at play so the risk is real. In my opinion, this tactic certainly isn’t positive and clearly crosses a line. We don’t have to predict conflicts when there are so many other options available.

I don’t know if the reader my colleague discussed cheated to achieve the accuracy that validated his prediction for the sitter/client. We do know that Phedon cheats brilliantly to enhance both his accuracy and emotional connection to his sitters. This raises a host of ethical issues related to using deception, especially in the course of a reading. The techniques to influence emotion are particularly questionable.

Across a wide range of posters, there seems a broadly shared consensus that trafficking in tears shouldn’t be the goal of mentalists or readers. Yet a focus on at best sadness and, at worst, actual trauma pervades Sybil. This is no accident, in many instances it is the modus operandi of the methods Phedon is teaching. Heightened (negatively charged) affective states are used to make the sitters especially malleable.

One of the primary techniques taught involves the ratcheting up of negative emotions/memories to leverage and enhance a subsequent catharsis and create what I think is best understood as an "illusion of rapport." To be clear, the reactions of the sitters in the video that many people are praising are also illusions; what you see is not what the recipients of the readings are really getting.

How can it be? The sitters have been tricked into believing someone understands their deepest emotions and concerns. I suspect if they were tipped to the amount of sheer deceit used to create this illusion it would crumble hard and they'd feel betrayed. This is no small thing and I don’t see such a potential dynamic having a place in a performance and especially not in a reading. The readers I know disdain this kind of deception.

Phedon says he wants his work to be deeply emotional, cathartic and for the recipients to leave feeling better. His desired result is to relieve them of a burden. Noble goals to be sure but I don’t see them as appropriate for mentalism in the manner presented, especially conjuring with negative emotions and memories. I think the approach of building these up in order to leverage a catharsis is particularly misplaced and potentially harmful. And, as I wrote above, it can’t really achieve the desired ends described by Phedon. If this were therapy, many of the approaches taught would be considered unethical.

S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is an entire category devoted to a method of making women, and interestingly only women, dredge up bad memories and cry. That’s entertainment!

Phedon continues with S.C.R.E.W.E.D. with the woman already mentioned above and, as per the formula, she begins to cry. He tells her reliving the emotions is a good thing, she needs to remember so she can learn from her past and do differently in the future. The thing is, the only reason she is reliving this obviously bad memory is so that Phedon can teach us how to make others suffer through the same process.

The process once again involves the heightening of negatively charged memories followed by an engineered catharsis. Tears are the intended outcome.

This is made clear in the PDF. Phedon describes the reaction of a performer he obviously respects, Christophe, who says his only reservation about performing S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is the frequency of crying by the sitters. Phedon says that this is proof of the power of the routine and necessary for the ultimate catharsis. Again, that’s entertainment?

All this leads me to wonder just who the audience for Sybil really is. The methods appear to cater to performers who want to imitate the kind of experience that Stewart and others describe genuinely offering. Yet Stewart, and other ethical readers of his ilk, wouldn’t use the majority of the methods on Sybil, not with the emphasis on conflict, sadness and loss. Not with the use of deception and blatant emotional manipulation.

Many of the ideas Phedon shares aren’t the stuff of mentalism either. There is no need to harness negative, potentially traumatic memories and related emotions in the name of entertainment. Tears are no measure of our success and imagination, dreams and desires present more than enough fertile territory for performers.


OMG! PERFECT ANALYSIS! Exactly spot on and the reason I’m so taken aback by the interest and praise Sibyl received from mentalists... mostly amateurs or very young who don’t seem to have a clue the havoc they can sow messing with someone in this way. I am not against readings, but if you’re going to give a reading, do it without trickery!

Approaches used in Sibyl is the stuff that gives readers and mentalists a bad name and makes P&T want to roast us at every opportunity... I’m glad someone finally came out and said it so clearly and unequivocally.

Thanks Dr. Bill!
Max Hazy
View Profile
Special user
521 Posts

Profile of Max Hazy
I knew this would get heavy from the title. Some heavy, strong and great advice here. I particularly liked IAIN points... specially this one:

Quote:
On Feb 27, 2019, IAIN wrote:
And in general terms - a reading says much more about the reader than it ever will about the sitter...


I'll try to be as direct as possible, because this can get subjective in several ways.

We need to think about what do we want to achieve through our performances. What you offer is entertainment? Insight? Or obscure self-righteous ego centered reasons? If you have to question yourself about what you do... that means that you're not in tune with your intentions for some reason... and this very "reason" is where your focus should be so you can find your own answers. Beyond that, even if you are in tune with your intentions... the intention itself should be checked regardless. Good intentions might not be enough, as already pointed. I will not even comment about bad intentions...

As an example, I used to do Tarot readings. I can say from MY experience that readings can make a huge POSITIVE impact in people's lives in several ways. However... my tarot readings were much more "Rocharch test" than "Predict the future". I would absolutely NEVER say something like "you will die when you have XX years" and yet this is something some readers feel they're entitled to say. Even thinking about it makes me sick...

I don't think readings are something that should be forbidden. I also don't think readings should be done inadvertently and here is where it will weight... because if there were a competition for a world record about how far GOOD readings can do... and how far BAD readings can do... the bad side would reach a bigger mileage, for sure. It's up to the reader to always keep himself on the good side of the readings. In my honest opinion, the danger comes when readers pretend to be blind to the obvious for questionable reasons. That's it.
"Your method is in my opinion the very best way to do Q&A"
Millard Longman

"Max has pushed some less known and seldom used principles a huge step forward"
Jan Forster


Arcane Grimoires Vol 1- http://www.maxhazy.com/arcane-grimoires/apocryphal-reach/

Arcane Grimoires Vol 2- http://www.maxhazy.com/Codex-Mentis/
Stunninger
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of Stunninger
Quote:
On Mar 8, 2019, Bill Cushman wrote:
"Cold reading threads always go mental. Fact." bevbevvybev

With that said:

I have been pondering the ethics of readings, once again, since watching and reading Sybil and have a bit to say on the topics introduced in this thread. I strongly disagree with the OP’s description of the work as not crossing lines and especially as “...positive, and he's not delving into anything negative.” Quite the opposite in my view and this is where issues of ethics are most relevant. I am not surprised that watching Sybil led Ravenspur to ask questions about the morality of readings.

I agree with Iain, Mr. Woolery, Stewart and others that this discussion is needed and its absence in the field a “sad omission.” Iain and I have briefly explored ethical readings in print together, but many of our thoughts have only been shared in correspondence. The fairly uncritical acceptance of approaches emphasized in Sybil suggest that this is a good time to say more.

I was struck by Mr. Woolery’s comment early on, “Like it or not, if you say things with confidence and they are (or seem) accurate, people will invest a certain amount of belief in what you say.” Accuracy (and, more importantly, what seems like accuracy) is achieved and enhanced via extremely effective manipulation and deception as taught on Sybil. The stated intention is to heighten belief just as Mr. Woolery describes.

I decided to share my thoughts on Sybil after speaking with a colleague, a therapist with a doctorate in marital and family therapy, about a client who became very upset after a Tarot reading. He described her as “coming undone,” when we spoke. She was ruminating and experiencing considerable anxiety two weeks later. She didn’t get a reading for any particular problem so was all the more unsettled when the psychic accurately delved into personal, negative experiences and predicted they wouldn’t be resolved in the immediate future. His overall accuracy only fueled her anxiety about his prediction, a consequence of the dynamic Mr. Woolery writes about above.

In the second reading demonstration on Sybil, Phedon elicits memories of difficult times from his sitter and then tells her he sees them continuing in the future. I can't say if this produced anxiety later on but the same dynamics are at play so the risk is real. In my opinion, this tactic certainly isn’t positive and clearly crosses a line. We don’t have to predict conflicts when there are so many other options available.

I don’t know if the reader my colleague discussed cheated to achieve the accuracy that validated his prediction for the sitter/client. We do know that Phedon cheats brilliantly to enhance both his accuracy and emotional connection to his sitters. This raises a host of ethical issues related to using deception, especially in the course of a reading. The techniques to influence emotion are particularly questionable.

Across a wide range of posters, there seems a broadly shared consensus that trafficking in tears shouldn’t be the goal of mentalists or readers. Yet a focus on at best sadness and, at worst, actual trauma pervades Sybil. This is no accident, in many instances it is the modus operandi of the methods Phedon is teaching. Heightened (negatively charged) affective states are used to make the sitters especially malleable.

One of the primary techniques taught involves the ratcheting up of negative emotions/memories to leverage and enhance a subsequent catharsis and create what I think is best understood as an "illusion of rapport." To be clear, the reactions of the sitters in the video that many people are praising are also illusions; what you see is not what the recipients of the readings are really getting.

How can it be? The sitters have been tricked into believing someone understands their deepest emotions and concerns. I suspect if they were tipped to the amount of sheer deceit used to create this illusion it would crumble hard and they'd feel betrayed. This is no small thing and I don’t see such a potential dynamic having a place in a performance and especially not in a reading. The readers I know disdain this kind of deception.

Phedon says he wants his work to be deeply emotional, cathartic and for the recipients to leave feeling better. His desired result is to relieve them of a burden. Noble goals to be sure but I don’t see them as appropriate for mentalism in the manner presented, especially conjuring with negative emotions and memories. I think the approach of building these up in order to leverage a catharsis is particularly misplaced and potentially harmful. And, as I wrote above, it can’t really achieve the desired ends described by Phedon. If this were therapy, many of the approaches taught would be considered unethical.

S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is an entire category devoted to a method of making women, and interestingly only women, dredge up bad memories and cry. That’s entertainment!

Phedon continues with S.C.R.E.W.E.D. with the woman already mentioned above and, as per the formula, she begins to cry. He tells her reliving the emotions is a good thing, she needs to remember so she can learn from her past and do differently in the future. The thing is, the only reason she is reliving this obviously bad memory is so that Phedon can teach us how to make others suffer through the same process.

The process once again involves the heightening of negatively charged memories followed by an engineered catharsis. Tears are the intended outcome.

This is made clear in the PDF. Phedon describes the reaction of a performer he obviously respects, Christophe, who says his only reservation about performing S.C.R.E.W.E.D. is the frequency of crying by the sitters. Phedon says that this is proof of the power of the routine and necessary for the ultimate catharsis. Again, that’s entertainment?

All this leads me to wonder just who the audience for Sybil really is. The methods appear to cater to performers who want to imitate the kind of experience that Stewart and others describe genuinely offering. Yet Stewart, and other ethical readers of his ilk, wouldn’t use the majority of the methods on Sybil, not with the emphasis on conflict, sadness and loss. Not with the use of deception and blatant emotional manipulation.

Many of the ideas Phedon shares aren’t the stuff of mentalism either. There is no need to harness negative, potentially traumatic memories and related emotions in the name of entertainment. Tears are no measure of our success and imagination, dreams and desires present more than enough fertile territory for performers.


Bill, you raise many excellent points. Have you considered creating and offering for sale a training program, perhaps a webinar or conference call series, on the ethics of readings? It seems there is a real need for such a program, which could benefit us all. You and IAIN discuss the ethics of readings to some extent in Devil May Care. I'm wondering if you may consider a more in-depth training on the subject? Certainly from your perspective, training and experience as a clinical psychologist, there is much you could teach us about the dangers and consequences of readings.

It's often mentioned that a tool can be used for good or to cause harm. That's true, but incomplete. In many professions and at many organizations "tools" of different types are used. There is often training on how to use each tool properly, covering intended use, what the tool is designed to be used for and what is considered inappropriate use, how to use the tool properly for specific applications or use cases, safety considerations, hands on practice with an experienced trainer and more.

It would be great there were an in-depth training program on the ethics of giving readings with principles to follow, practices that are ethical, practices that are unethical, the reasons why for each, specific behaviors that can cause harm and must be avoided, examples, etc.

I don't know if creating such a program interests you or not, but it seems there is a need in the market.

Bill
Senor Fabuloso
View Profile
Inner circle
1250 Posts

Profile of Senor Fabuloso
The ethics are simple, keep it entertaining and without any advice on mental, financial or health issues. That would include investment opportunities, marriage counseling, drug taking or procedure, prescribed by a doctor, or any mental issues normally handled by the psychiatric community. It's that simple.
No matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it will NEVER be right.

If I'm not responding to you? It's because you're a TROLL!
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18325 Posts

Profile of IAIN
Initially, I was very keen to put together an ethics book and even lined up a few people who wanted to contribute.

However, I've currently changed my mind. As I feel it would be a waste of time. It wouldn't change any mindsets really, even if it were given away - which was my intention.
Stunninger
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of Stunninger
Quote:
On Mar 13, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Initially, I was very keen to put together an ethics book and even lined up a few people who wanted to contribute.

However, I've currently changed my mind. As I feel it would be a waste of time. It wouldn't change any mindsets really, even if it were given away - which was my intention.


Well, I for one hope you may reconsider. I would love to see such a book. Some minds may be changed, especially if there are clear and specific examples of what not to do and the reasons why - along with the consequences.
Chris K
View Profile
Inner circle
2303 Posts

Profile of Chris K
Quote:
On Mar 13, 2019, Stunninger wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 13, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Initially, I was very keen to put together an ethics book and even lined up a few people who wanted to contribute.

However, I've currently changed my mind. As I feel it would be a waste of time. It wouldn't change any mindsets really, even if it were given away - which was my intention.


Well, I for one hope you may reconsider. I would love to see such a book. Some minds may be changed, especially if there are clear and specific examples of what not to do and the reasons why - along with the consequences.


I think the book would be interesting (and I would love to read it) but pointless (in terms of having an impact on most people). This thread illustrates that. Which is really too bad in my opinion. While my personal feelings haven't changed a great deal over the last, say, 10 years, my opinion is more nuanced these days. And, for me at least, those nuances are where the real interesting things happen.

Best,
Lem
Senor Fabuloso
View Profile
Inner circle
1250 Posts

Profile of Senor Fabuloso
The thing about ethics is that often times, it's the profession, that sets the standards. Having a base line for the accepted proper way of conduct, can and does keep people honest. When one operates outside the accepted manner of conduct, the profession itself will often condemn the offender through it's ethics boards. I think it would be a good idea for mentalist, to have such ethic counsels. Honestly I thought, we already did?
No matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it will NEVER be right.

If I'm not responding to you? It's because you're a TROLL!
WitchDocChris
View Profile
Inner circle
York, PA
2319 Posts

Profile of WitchDocChris
There is no governing body with any authority for mentalists, outside the existing structure for laws wherever said mentalist is. Nor could I imagine any body could possibly be remotely effective. Are you thinking of the PEA?
Christopher
Witch Doctor

Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4
Senor Fabuloso
View Profile
Inner circle
1250 Posts

Profile of Senor Fabuloso
I was thinking the PEA. And although it's not well known, does have an allure that if one was to violate the code of conduct, could be banned from ever entering it's ranks. I know most of us wont't be invited but the idea that if we mess up, non admittance is guarantied, might be a deterrent?
No matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it will NEVER be right.

If I'm not responding to you? It's because you're a TROLL!
WitchDocChris
View Profile
Inner circle
York, PA
2319 Posts

Profile of WitchDocChris
I suppose it could be a deterrent to those who both know it exists, and care about wanting to be a member.
Christopher
Witch Doctor

Psycho Seance book: https://tinyurl.com/y873bbr4
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » The Morality of Cold Readings? (59 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL