If you haven't already read it, may I recommend @Grizabella 's excellent blog post on the very subject.  

I think this is a very important issue IF you (the reader)  has difficulty figuring out what the cards are trying to tell you about a given question or situation.  Not only does this usually mean you're probably struggling to decide which part of your issue a card is addressing, but you also have to guess as to whether the tarot is offering the upright meaning or the shadow meaning.

If you are the kind of tarot reader who never encounters this kind of confusion, when you lay down—say—5 cards at random, then more power to your arm!  However, this forum is full of people asking for help with a reading that they've done that doesn't make sense.  More often than not, they've just pulled a number of cards at random, hoping the random cards will create a pattern that answers their question.  And often they don't use reversals either, so an upright Lovers card or 2 of Cups always means something good, etc.  So why is the guy paying no attention to me ...etc.

Designing and/or using a specific spread before drawing the cards, while allowing your deck to use its full vocabulary (reversals) while 'speaking' to you, is one way for a reader to get traction on this issue. 

10 minutes ago, Chariot said:

If you haven't already read it, may I recommend @Grizabella 's excellent blog post on the very subject.  

 

Thanks! I don't think I've seen it but I have a lot of respect for her opinion.

A psychic tarot reader is not necessarily a medium or spiritist. And all the psychic readers I have ever come across, have used spreads to some degree. 

To be honest, I don’t think your love of tarot spreads is as controversial as you may think! 😄

6 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

A psychic tarot reader is not necessarily a medium or spiritist. And all the psychic readers I have ever come across, have used spreads to some degree. 

 

To be honest, I don’t think your love of tarot spreads is as controversial as you may think! 😄

Perhaps not here, but in other places the ranks seem to close around intuitive, freestyle interpretation and spreads are dismissed. Regarding psychic readers, I get the impression that many of them see the cards more as "props" that they hang their inspired visions on. They don't so much read them as "enlist" them in their cause.

🤣

I am a spread-fiend.  I've never had a reading from anyone who doesn't use one.

The added "clarifier" cards on top of a "piddled puddle" from a deck that's only been riffled a few times causes "gobbledygook".  Plunk that mess down in front of a reader who hasn't ever really learned card meanings and combinations  who wings it intuitively and you've got a "Huh????" reading.  But leave off the "clarifiers", make the spread from a truly randomized deck, go intuitive only after thoroughly knowing basic card and card combination meanings and you'll have a "Well--duh!" reading that practically dances off your tongue.

What do I mean by truly randomized? Well, I was frustrated when I'd riffle and riffle and riffle my deck only to find out I was pulling the same cards in the same order as a spread I had just done sometimes..  Not always but frequently enough that it bugged me.  So I started dealing out the deck into four or five piles after a reading, gathering them all up, putting them away, and then riffling them again before the next reading.  

I always randomize the deck after a reading is done and then put it away.  Then when I'm using it again, I riffle for the reading and for any other cards drawn for that particular reading.  Then when it's over, I randomize again and put the deck away,

I consider that most readers realise the benefit of spreads, or at least they do after trying to make sense of the cards they pull without positions in the first few weeks of getting a deck. There's always a context that the card must fit, a question that is seeking an answer. Sometimes 6 cards are pulled when only 1 is required. Most of us here ask new readers if there's a position for the cards they lay if nothing is specified. 

Further, I consider that most readers would have a sort of leaping off point, a base meaning we apply to a card and then work that into readings we are doing. It's probably the first thing that comes out of our mouth to start the ball rolling "this card often means..." Then it needs to be put into context.  Now, if not solely for status or monetary gain, it seems to me that genuine readers seek to provide help and guidance to people (including themselves). 

On 9/28/2025 at 1:29 AM, Barleywine said:

Regarding psychic readers, I get the impression that many of them see the cards more as "props" that they hang their inspired visions on. They don't so much read them as "enlist" them in their cause.

Here, I would have to ask if you have engaged in any psychic development activities? It seems as if you have a rigid belief system around this method, and a bit of contempt for it:

As professional readers we must ask ourselves whether our sole objective is to appease our mystical preferences .... I recognize that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but they can be miles apart in practical value and shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

Here I would have to ask if you have ever had a reading from an evidential medium or psychic? Mediums can provide very practical advice, and better than any you could provide from a learn-by-rote Tarot reading.  Just staring at a person and reading their energy to tell them what is really going on is a little bit odd/confronting for some, so cards or other tools are handy - and make it interesting.

I understand what you're getting at with the "fables clever diviners" statement. I could say more but it would take too long.

Hi, Barley - and others I've not seen in far too long!

It's really interesting how people have such different interpretation of what can and cannot work well, when we're inherently dealing with something for which there is no known explanation! I mean, we all have our ideas about how Tarot works, and the relative importance of pure intuition versus strict knowledge of traditions, and internal ('psychic' and subconscious elements) versus external (spirit guides, the universal unconscious...), but none of us actually know. It seems to me that when people claim to read in very individual ways, then that's quite likely because they've honed the process to what works for them, with their technique. If we accept that one of these 'irrational' approaches is possible, then it opens the door for the others as well, and there is no guarantee that they aren't all true simultaneously. There must presumably be shared processes working at a deep level, because we're all occupying the same universe, but I've too often seen my innate scepticism be scuppered by experience to be dismissive of anything, a priori--whether that's purely intuitive reading, remote readings for unknown sitters (I really didn't believe that was possible, at first... until it turned out to be, if anything, even more accurate), or strict, traditional approaches with named spreads. 

When it comes to spreads and random pulls, I don't see a problem with either; they're both appropriate for people with different approaches and different stages of experience. That might sound like a cop-out, but I really don't think it is. I started with traditional spreads, because it gave me a structure and made sense. I even made up some of my own (there are some posted here), when I find a particular format that works well. I now do readings ad-hoc, making up a spread (or 'conversation') for the question at hand. I still use spreads in a sense, in that I assign meanings to cards in advance, but the form of the spread has no fixed form and evolves depending on the cards, as I find that I need to ask a slightly different question to get to what I want to know.

I can't read effectively in free-form, because my mind tends to flit around if I let it, and I personally like to have clear correlations between questions and answers... but I can totally accept there are people who do, and very successfully. In that case, I imagine it as their intuition works not only the meanings intended by the cards, but also on the questions intended by themselves. Occasionally I get a glimpse of that, but it's not reliable enough for me to depend on it. Yet. 

I've seen strikingly good readings from people using purely intuitive approaches, and also from readers with much more traditional approaches. For me, the cards are tools, but we can develop very different approaches that each work. It's like in music: virtuosos are celebrated because they've honed their skills as individuals to the highest levels, and transcended the rule book... not because they have all followed the same technique to reach a robotic, identical perfection.

4 hours ago, JoyousGirl said:

I consider that most readers realise the benefit of spreads, or at least they do after trying to make sense of the cards they pull without positions in the first few weeks of getting a deck. There's always a context that the card must fit, a question that is seeking an answer. Sometimes 6 cards are pulled when only 1 is required. Most of us here ask new readers if there's a position for the cards they lay if nothing is specified. 

 

Further, I consider that most readers would have a sort of leaping off point, a base meaning we apply to a card and then work that into readings we are doing. It's probably the first thing that comes out of our mouth to start the ball rolling "this card often means..." Then it needs to be put into context.  Now, if not solely for status or monetary gain, it seems to me that genuine readers seek to provide help and guidance to people (including themselves). 

 

 

Here, I would have to ask if you have engaged in any psychic development activities? It seems as if you have a rigid belief system around this method, and a bit of contempt for it:

 

As professional readers we must ask ourselves whether our sole objective is to appease our mystical preferences .... I recognize that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but they can be miles apart in practical value and shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

 

Here I would have to ask if you have ever had a reading from an evidential medium or psychic? Mediums can provide very practical advice, and better than any you could provide from a learn-by-rote Tarot reading.  Just staring at a person and reading their energy to tell them what is really going on is a little bit odd/confronting for some, so cards or other tools are handy - and make it interesting.

 

I understand what you're getting at with the "fables clever diviners" statement. I could say more but it would take too long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Quote

11 hours ago, Wanderer said:

Hi, Barley - and others I've not seen in far too long!

 

It's really interesting how people have such different interpretation of what can and cannot work well, when we're inherently dealing with something for which there is no known explanation! I mean, we all have our ideas about how Tarot works, and the relative importance of pure intuition versus strict knowledge of traditions, and internal ('psychic' and subconscious elements) versus external (spirit guides, the universal unconscious...), but none of us actually know. It seems to me that when people claim to read in very individual ways, then that's quite likely because they've honed the process to what works for them, with their technique. If we accept that one of these 'irrational' approaches is possible, then it opens the door for the others as well, and there is no guarantee that they aren't all true simultaneously. There must presumably be shared processes working at a deep level, because we're all occupying the same universe, but I've too often seen my innate scepticism be scuppered by experience to be dismissive of anything, a priori--whether that's purely intuitive reading, remote readings for unknown sitters (I really didn't believe that was possible, at first... until it turned out to be, if anything, even more accurate), or strict, traditional approaches with named spreads. 

 

When it comes to spreads and random pulls, I don't see a problem with either; they're both appropriate for people with different approaches and different stages of experience. That might sound like a cop-out, but I really don't think it is. I started with traditional spreads, because it gave me a structure and made sense. I even made up some of my own (there are some posted here), when I find a particular format that works well. I now do readings ad-hoc, making up a spread (or 'conversation') for the question at hand. I still use spreads in a sense, in that I assign meanings to cards in advance, but the form of the spread has no fixed form and evolves depending on the cards, as I find that I need to ask a slightly different question to get to what I want to know.

 

I can't read effectively in free-form, because my mind tends to flit around if I let it, and I personally like to have clear correlations between questions and answers... but I can totally accept there are people who do, and very successfully. In that case, I imagine it as their intuition works not only the meanings intended by the cards, but also on the questions intended by themselves. Occasionally I get a glimpse of that, but it's not reliable enough for me to depend on it. Yet. 

 

I've seen strikingly good readings from people using purely intuitive approaches, and also from readers with much more traditional approaches. For me, the cards are tools, but we can develop very different approaches that each work. It's like in music: virtuosos are celebrated because they've honed their skills as individuals to the highest levels, and transcended the rule book... not because they have all followed the same technique to reach a robotic, identical perfection.

 

 

You're absolutely correct, we don't know how it works so we make stuff up that is plausible but still speculative. We can argue that truth is truth no matter who sees it, but there is some evidence that reality is shaped by  the act of observation, so I don't feel qualified (nor do I believe it necessary) to insert my subjective bias between the querent, the cards and the spiritual source of the knowledge. I do think that every reading has a psychic component, but it is more properly addressed in the channel opened by the sitter through concentrating on the topic and shuffling the deck, which is the main reason I prefer face-to-face reading, or to have my clients pull their own card in a remote reading. It is that querent engagement that is most important to me, since my job is to interpret, not originate. I'm more of an esotericist than a mystic, and I "just read the cards" identified by sitters through their subconscious interaction; it's their responsibility to figure out what my observations mean to their private reality, which they understand far better than I ever could from looking at the cards, they just don't know it yet. In that sense I feel more like a midwife than an oracle.

5 hours ago, Barleywine said:

You're absolutely correct, we don't know how it works so we make stuff up that is plausible but still speculative. We can argue that truth is truth no matter who sees it, but there is some evidence that reality is shaped by  the act of observation, so I don't feel qualified (nor do I believe it necessary) to insert my subjective bias between the querent, the cards and the spiritual source of the knowledge. I do think that every reading has a psychic component, but it is more properly addressed in the channel opened by the sitter through concentrating on the topic and shuffling the deck, which is the main reason I prefer face-to-face reading, or to have my clients pull their own card in a remote reading. It is that querent engagement that is most important to me, since my job is to interpret, not originate. I'm more of an esotericist than a mystic, and I "just read the cards" identified by sitters through their subconscious interaction; it's their responsibility to figure out what my observations mean to their private reality, which they understand far better than I ever could from looking at the cards, they just don't know it yet. In that sense I feel more like a midwife than an oracle.

Can't argue with that! 👍

I see it a little differently, personally, in that I don't feel like I'm inserting bias when I'm reading, but rather helping people to avoid their own biases. Just as many readers find it difficult to read for themselves, because they know too much about the situation and can't detach their reading from what they want, sometimes someone who is not trained in being detached can have great difficulty in seeing the implications objectively. Of course, it all depends on the specifics of the reading, though, as well as the approach of the reader. The way that I feel Tarot works, it doesn't need the direct input of the querent; the information is out there, and the cards can help us access it directly. That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything special (beyond practice) about the reader, in terms of ability to access those insights, and being more of a facilitator to enable the sitter to use latent abilities is just as good. I'm sure some readers are adept at doing exactly that, whereas others control the process more as an individual.

The question about whether truth is absolute is a deep one, though! 😁 Wavefunction collapse can still, for all we know, be dependent on conscious observation (although physicists generally don't want to go there...), but does that mean that there is flexibility in reality? Presumably only until that point where the possibilities have resolved. Future events may be malleable, but the past seems to be fixed, at least in a physical sense...

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

Can't argue with that! 👍

I see it a little differently, personally, in that I don't feel like I'm inserting bias when I'm reading, but rather helping people to avoid their own biases. Just as many readers find it difficult to read for themselves, because they know too much about the situation and can't detach their reading from what they want, sometimes someone who is not trained in being detached can have great difficulty in seeing the implications objectively. Of course, it all depends on the specifics of the reading, though, as well as the approach of the reader. The way that I feel Tarot works, it doesn't need the direct input of the querent; the information is out there, and the cards can help us access it directly. That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything special (beyond practice) about the reader, in terms of ability to access those insights, and being more of a facilitator to enable the sitter to use latent abilities is just as good. I'm sure some readers are adept at doing exactly that, whereas others control the process more as an individual.

 

The question about whether truth is absolute is a deep one, though! 😁 Wavefunction collapse can still, for all we know, be dependent on conscious observation (although physicists generally don't want to go there...), but does that mean that there is flexibility in reality? Presumably only until that point where the possibilities have resolved. Future events may be malleable, but the past seems to be fixed, at least in a physical sense...

I've always been fascinated by the old science fiction stories where someone goes back in time, changes one tiny detail. and cancels their entire future due to the "snowball effect." The question is whether they would be stranded in the past or just go "poof" in all time periods and dimensions. These is currently no proof that we can hop across the multi-verse, but that would seem to be safer than tinkering with our own past.

Regarding all the knowledge being "out there" and available to anyone, my main concern has been whether it is pristine or sullied by other influences, in which case it may not be reliable. (I was strongly impressed by Dion Fortune's Psychic Self-Defense and the warnings in  Edwin Steinbrecher's Inner Guide Meditation, as well as by my own astral work and the documented psychological damage once caused by the Ouija board and the Power of Positive Thinking.) I would rather trust my well-honed instincts to acquire wisdom directly from what I see in the cards than pull it out of the aethyr. I wonder how many psychic and intuitive readers even ponder these vulnerabilities beyond saying a prayer and burning some incense.

As far as subjective bias, I think its more of an issue with remote reading where the diviner pulls the cards; in face-to-face settings it is manageable because the "source" is sitting across the table. This is why I devised a scheme to have clients pull their own cards (or give me a set of random numbers if they don't own cards). I don't really mind a sitter's "confirmation bias" getting into it because the cards as I read them are usually honest enough to discount it.

6 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

I would rather trust my well-honed instincts to acquire wisdom directly from what I see in the cards than pull it out of the aethyr.

Yes, but where does tarot get the answers from? And is your deck (or any deck) always a ’pure vessel’? Does it have a firewall or other protection for outside influence? How do you know that your wellhoned instincts haven’t been impacted by something or someone? 
 

13 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

I wonder how many psychic and intuitive readers even ponder these vulnerabilities beyond saying a prayer and burning some incense.

I can only speak for myself. I am someone who does ’regular’ readings as well as intuitive and psychic readings. I take all these things that you mention (and more) into consideration. I don’t burn incense and I don’t say prayers, I have other means of protection. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’m a pure vessel, completely unbiased or shielded from all energetic tampering. I have a sense of purpose in what I do, and that is why I continue doing it. I do the best I can, and well - that’s pretty much it! 🙂

16 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Yes, but where does tarot get the answers from? And is your deck (or any deck) always a ’pure vessel’? Does it have a firewall or other protection for outside influence? How do you know that your wellhoned instincts haven’t been impacted by something or someone? 
 

I can only speak for myself. I am someone who does ’regular’ readings as well as intuitive and psychic readings. I take all these things that you mention (and more) into consideration. I don’t burn incense and I don’t say prayers, I have other means of protection. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’m a pure vessel, completely unbiased or shielded from all energetic tampering. I have a sense of purpose in what I do, and that is why I continue doing it. I do the best I can, and well - that’s pretty much it! 🙂

As I see it, tarot provides the answers by aligning with the sitter's subconscious awareness of their own future via the shuffle and cut (French author Joseph Maxwell had a good take on that), and the cards themselves are obviously delimited by the knowledge-base that has grown up around them, both coded into them and folkloric in nature. In my case, intuition uses that as a springboard for expanded exploration, always keeping one eye on where the insight originated, but I don't think intuition arises spontaneously like Athena issuing from the forehead of Zeus; there are lots of possible sources - the Collective Unconscious; the Akashic Record; the Astral Plane; Plato's "Soul of the World," all of which have been related to intuitive inquiry at one time or another. I'm on the same page as far as "doing the best I can," I have just gathered different tools to accomplish it, ones that I've come to trust because I can observe their "inner workings." There is still some "magic" in the process but it is well-behaved.

26 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

There is still some "magic" in the process but it is well-behaved.

Indeed... isn't that the basis of all magical systems? The attempt to corral the untameable into something that we can work with, where we can feel confident in the outcomes. 

31 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

the cards themselves are obviously delimited by the knowledge-base that has grown up around them, both coded into them and folkloric in nature.

...but also, in my experience, imbued into them by personal use, on the level of an individual deck. The physical cards aren't what this is about, to me; they're just a tool, or a mirror. It's the interplay of the imagery and meaning of each card, as understood by the reader, that matters. This is partly why I have found that having the sitter involved directly can be a distraction; do they respond to my personal understanding of the cards when selecting them, or only to the traditional meanings? When reading face-to-face, especially if the sitter is picking the cards, I find that there's less room for the personal and intuitive elements. 

The whole debate about whether Tarot can be safe from external influences that 'aim' to corrupt it is a fascinating one. In general, I tend to believe that divination is different from more 'interactive' types of magic, in that it depends mostly on oneself, and is observational in nature. We use tools to extend our awareness beyond the physical, and allow our consciousness to observe things we can't see directly. If, on the other hand, we are relying on some other being or power to interact with us (as many believe), then that opens up possibilities of a more worrying nature. I've never been one to multiply conscious entities in my belief system, but having experienced what are known as 'demon scratches', I no longer have any certainty that there can't be direct interference in our world, one way or another. I've certainly noticed that the cards are capable of showing me my own beliefs rather than the reality, as well, but that's a potentially misleading rather than malicious factor. To attempt to get around such interference, we start getting into the realm of ritual (and why we believe any of that works but that's a whole other topic..! 

I think we're all on the same page where it comes to 'just doing the best we can'! ☺️ In that sense, these discussions can be really useful, just to make us re-look at our practices and see if we're missing something. 

12 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

Indeed... isn't that the basis of all magical systems? The attempt to corral the untameable into something that we can work with, where we can feel confident in the outcomes. 

 

...but also, in my experience, imbued into them by personal use, on the level of an individual deck. The physical cards aren't what this is about, to me; they're just a tool, or a mirror. It's the interplay of the imagery and meaning of each card, as understood by the reader, that matters. This is partly why I have found that having the sitter involved directly can be a distraction; do they respond to my personal understanding of the cards when selecting them, or only to the traditional meanings? When reading face-to-face, especially if the sitter is picking the cards, I find that there's less room for the personal and intuitive elements. 

 

The whole debate about whether Tarot can be safe from external influences that 'aim' to corrupt it is a fascinating one. In general, I tend to believe that divination is different from more 'interactive' types of magic, in that it depends mostly on oneself, and is observational in nature. We use tools to extend our awareness beyond the physical, and allow our consciousness to observe things we can't see directly. If, on the other hand, we are relying on some other being or power to interact with us (as many believe), then that opens up possibilities of a more worrying nature. I've never been one to multiply conscious entities in my belief system, but having experienced what are known as 'demon scratches', I no longer have any certainty that there can't be direct interference in our world, one way or another. I've certainly noticed that the cards are capable of showing me my own beliefs rather than the reality, as well, but that's a potentially misleading rather than malicious factor. To attempt to get around such interference, we start getting into the realm of ritual (and why we believe any of that works but that's a whole other topic..! 

 

I think we're all on the same page where it comes to 'just doing the best we can'! ☺️ In that sense, these discussions can be really useful, just to make us re-look at our practices and see if we're missing something. 

Since I first picked it up in 1972, the tarot has been "schooling" me in its ways, and I still say that I learn something new almost every time I read for someone else, if only about the tarot/human interface. I would suppose that in recent years (since I returned to active practice in 2011) I've been putting back into the relationship more than I've been taking out, all in the service of "burnishing my tools," and through my blog writing trying to help others reach the same level of rapport.

On 9/27/2025 at 8:29 AM, Barleywine said:

... in other places the ranks seem to close around intuitive, freestyle interpretation and spreads are dismissed. 

I found this on Reddit--which I no longer participate there. Too many newbie readers making rules about: You can't predict the future, you cant read on death, spreads are outre and you don't need to memorize card meanings.

Meanwhile, I am quite happy to have been a newbie in a time and place where I did memorize card meanings and learn a spread. Chacon a son gout.

On 9/27/2025 at 1:11 PM, Grizabella said:

The added "clarifier" cards on top of a "piddled puddle" from a deck that's only been riffled a few times causes "gobbledygook".  Plunk that mess down in front of a reader who hasn't ever really learned card meanings and combinations  who wings it intuitively and you've got a "Huh????" reading.  

LOL. People want tarot to be easy. And it's not. Like any other skill it takes work and effort to be good at it. Yes, there's the 1% magical geniuses who are so psychically gifted they could make accurate predictions with a deck of cards or a ball of string. But the other 99% of regular folks--efforts and study are what gets us there. Whether you're memorizing card meanings or doing meditation practices to improve your intuition--there's real work involved if you want to get good at reading cards.

On 9/29/2025 at 8:43 AM, Wanderer said:

... I don't feel like I'm inserting bias when I'm reading, but rather helping people to avoid their own biases...

Well said. I feel exactly this way, too. As a reader i also must be very careful to be 100% honest with clients--This is what the CARDS say, vs. I am saying this as a human being who went through a similar situation. 

On 9/29/2025 at 9:51 AM, Raggydoll said:

Yes, but where does tarot get the answers from? And is your deck (or any deck) always a ’pure vessel’? Does it have a firewall or other protection for outside influence? How do you know that your well honed instincts haven’t been impacted by something or someone? 

I see the individual decks as parts of a larger Intelligence. This Larger Intelligence is free from human manipulation. It's bigger than us. Reading tarots in some ways is no different than taking omens from the flight of birds or similar patterns in nature. The birds aren't influenced by us seeing an omen in their flight pattern. I hope that makes sense. Like Nature, Tarot is bigger than humans. It creates patterns and numbers based on the energy of the moment.

But we humans are seldom to never entirely free of influences. Especially those of us who are intuitive and psychic. Ye gods i pick up "stuff" all the time and literally spend hours of my life cleaning it out of my common consciousness. 

Back to the original topic. I always use a spread to get started. The spread adds much-needed structure. In longer readings i almost always mix spreads with open reading. Both myself and the client need the spreads to get started and establish rapport. At a certain point I might just pull cards and read them with no defined spread. But this is after rapport has been established and we are both in the flow. Not before.

Which is my philosophy with Tarot. A good reader will be expert at spreads and also capable of open readings. And know when to apply each.

3 hours ago, Misterei said:

I see the individual decks as parts of a larger Intelligence. This Larger Intelligence is free from human manipulation. It's bigger than us. Reading tarots in some ways is no different than taking omens from the flight of birds or similar patterns in nature. The birds aren't influenced by us seeing an omen in their flight pattern. I hope that makes sense. Like Nature, Tarot is bigger than humans. It creates patterns and numbers based on the energy of the moment.

 

Larger Intelligence! I like that, a cardboard-and-ink "hive mind" that assimilates us like the Borg. Resistance is futile!

On 9/30/2025 at 4:35 PM, Barleywine said:

Larger Intelligence! I like that, a cardboard-and-ink "hive mind" that assimilates us like the Borg. Resistance is futile!

Hehe. Resistance was futile for me, anyway 😉