Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear SE22,

Offering my services as a tea leaf reader. ?50/hour, plus expenses (tea, kettle maintenance)


I have a Diploma from the renowned Stonebridge Associated Colleges. Feel free to check them out - they have a website, a logo and some photo library pictures of people learning stuff.


I generally do PG but can work with Typhoo as well.


Thursday night special: BYOC (bring your own cup) - 20% off.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4699-offered-tea-leaf-reading-lounged/
Share on other sites

In this time of credit crunching, I would need a guarantee that the teabags were not being dried and reused - I wouldn't want a mixed reading from someone else's aura


why are the scientific evidence types always referred to as flat-earthers? surely is t'other way round, no?

I guarantee that any tea used will be organic or free-range (whichever rakes-in a greater profit).


Tea (loose, bags); coffee (beans, ground, pods, Instant, Mellow Birds).. In fact if you blow your nose onto a saucer and slip me a twenty I'll do my best.


Free tall dark stranger* with every reading - can't say fairer than that.




*height of your tall dark stranger may go down as well as up

MadWorld74 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You guys are such @#$%&. So what if people have

> readings of any description? What the fcuk is it

> to you? Go sit on your flat earth and stick your

> teapots up your arses.

> (Not edited once for swearing or bad language)


I couldn't agree with MW74 more, her cogent and reasoned argument puts this thread to shame.

And yes *Bob*, I'm looking at you, oppressor that you are, I hope you have the humility to seek out a patch of flat earth and stick a teapot up your arse.

For then and only then will you find true peace.

And as for the rest of you @#$%& you are and @#$%& you shall remain.

As a teenager I was driven to open hearts such as your own *Bob*...


Twixt 12 and 17, too old for my mother's bosom and too young for a mututally exclusive relationship, it was only the gentle hands of a plam reader that offered me the intimacy and a sense of shared travails that kept me from the abyss.


Perhaps MW74, through the fog of your frustrations, this is the solace that you seek?


I have little doubt that within *Bob*'s aura, gently caressed by the cradle of his cool hands and entranced by his dark soulful eyes, your life will find meaning.

A genius post for sure - I was actually in a comedy club when I was notified about the kerfuffle around the thread, and I laughed out loud when I read it. Kudos *Bob*


I will agree with Sue, Madworld74 and the various PM'ers who appear too shy to support them in public inasmuch as the threads in Wanted section shouldn't be invaded by us cynics. The Reiki share group has been going for some time without anyone wading in with their size 9s which is think is decent and respectful


HOWEVER


Outside those threads we should be able to call it what it is - arrant nonsense.


Complete the following sentence:


"Without Astrology/Reiki/Tealeaf-Reading we would be unable to..."


I can think of two possible responses


1) "We don't need poetry etc but the world would be a duller place without them." Which is true.. but it assumes we are to take the practices above as artforms and tehrefore subject to the same critical reviews


2) "Astrology/Reiki/Tealeaf-Reading etc provides me and others with comfort and hope and guidance." But you can say that about ANYTHING - some people find solace in teddy bears but you don't, to my knowledge, get to claim any great input to the human condition or need any "qualifications" to do so. And in any case, all of the events which the practices "help" with will happen anyway


But I'm open to genuine answers from Sue and MadWorld and any others. Really - if I'm missing out on something I want to know


I will say I take personal offence at being called a flat-earther. The fact that it seems impossible to debate reason with some practitioners doesn't make me all that keen to enter a debate.. to the question "so what if people have readings?" I can only reply I'm not that bothered if you go and have a reading - but talking about it in public means it will elicit response. But disagree as I might, I'm not endeared to anyone who needs to respond


"Go sit on your flat earth and stick your teapots up your arses.

(Not edited once for swearing or bad language)

"


and who takes pride in not editing for swearing or bad language - enough to make it clear!!


i don't know much about Reiki Madworld, but I understand you are a practitioner and isn't the deal with reiki that it leads to some form of inner peace (I'm paraphrasing so please don't rip me a new one to say how little I know) - all I'm saying is I don't often see much evidence of said inner-peace

One need only review the Scientology debacle to know that such aggressive responses from these divine mystical pedlars broke no benefits. MW would do well to discuss this with their PR department.


I take the flat-earth jibe to suggest that somehow we are mired in a medieval backwater, whilst MW and chums have advanced to a hypothetical 'next step' for humanity. Perhaps a kind of elevated state that has moved further along the evolutionary road? One that clearly takes its strength from empirical evidence.


It neatly puts in our place by pointing out that for us to criticise her on her lofty perch is akin to a child chastising Kant's 'Critique on Reason' for spelling mistakes. Her nose is raised, her disdain apparent.


How miserable we must seem, floundering in our primoridal soup. Conversely, how impressive and awesome do the new age tribe appear in their citadel? They're like Philosopher Kings in all their gold and finery. I would be honoured to polish their stools.

In the current climate shouldn't we be encouraging spending on home grown industry?

Tea reading ticks all the boxes, local, rather than outsourced skills, stimulating spending on PG and Typhoo, and the growth in staffordshire teapot production?


Get's my vote, plus if the world was round, why aren't there hills in the middle of lakes?!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...