I am using the term in the sense of "Not actually doing what they say they are."
There are well meaning people out there who genuinely believe they have some kind of supernatural ability and use that to help others. I have no problem with those people, but they are technically frauds.
This is also not to say that I don't believe in supernatural abilities at all. I have not seen enough evidence in either direction to make a decision on that front.
Not to side track this thread, but I see the "technicality" as being hair splitting in most instances. For an example, there is a truth about the idea that "all psychic use cold reading" but the reason for this ISN'T the reason most skeptics like to imply, it's the fact that everything (all symbols) have an assigned meaning in life -- a definition -- and as such all things have a positive & negative influence under that definition e.g. it is impossible to not be a "Cold Reader" by today's seriously augmented definition of the term (Cold Reading does not mean today, what it meant just 20 years ago. The meaning has been seriously bastardized and spun since the early 1980s by certain "cults" associated with magic and the atheist movement as a whole).
There are numerous "Readers" in the world who have gotten counseling degrees and higher levels of psychology and sociology based degrees so they could better serve their clients and too, be able to better deal with the naysayers that love to scream about how we, as Readers, aren't properly trained for what we do. Where there is a truth to that, it is not a complete truth. Too, if I'm peddling myself as a Tarot Reader then that's what I'm relying on, the Tarot discipline not a bunch of magic tricks. . . this is true of most all Reading forms. . . it would be incredibly wise for most detractors of this field to study Ron Martin's works as well as Richard Websters & Neal Scyrer's earlier material.
Technically speaking however (and more closely related to the topic) many a legend such as Dante, Thurston, Houdini and of course the masters of mentalism like Annemann, Dunninger & Corinda ALL place solid Reading technique as the "epitome" of magic -- the highest form of enchantment one could achieve in that it is self-contained, requires little to no deception and it gives to the patron what they most love -- to hear good things and positive reinforcements about themselves and their own lives and too, what one does as a Reader is transformational in the real world; a solid Reader can deliver the kind of experience that helps people get out of their ruts in life. The responsible Reader, always seeking to help their clients to become empowered rather than dependent. While we do rely on repeat business, we likewise rely on "trust" and genuine loyalty; two things you cannot hope to gain if you're being duplicitous and manipulative (in the sense of being predatory).
AS TO THE REST OF THIS ARGUMENT. . .
TeeDee, thank you for your input, it's been interesting.
JButterfield, your attitude and thinking seems to be on par with the kind of scenario that's giving "skeptics" of today a very bad name in that you are more cynic and evangelists for atheism than you are true skeptics such as Christopher presents himself. On many levels Christopher and I stand quite close together on this issue in that I am both, believer and skeptic; I've seen and experienced far too much skeptics CANNOT explain without either insulting me by saying I was on drugs or some such thing, painting me as "delusional" which is always a great fall back favorite or then we have the "I don't know enough about this stuff and the subtle deceptions". . . let's take a poll on how many here think I'm lacking in such knowledge. . .
I'm hell on frauds . . . I mean predatory individuals and groups. I've had my life on the line twice when dealing with this sort and exposing them and I never once sought to make headlines with such things because that was never my goal. . . it is the goal of most hacks that think themselves to be "Houdini" and want to preserve their "careers" by playing this game and grabbing the headlines. Sorry, but that's the biggest reason why I refuse to encourage people to read "The Full Facts Book on Cold Reading" (one of the biggest pieces of crap and direct FRAUD ever pawned off on the magic community). But I digress here. . .
My points are dual; if this is an issue for you then start a thread let's not usurp this one. I may have been the catalyst to this one getting side-tracked because of my response to Christopher but I was only seeking clarification from a friend. It was never my intention to invite controversy into this thread and take it in this direction that came as the result of someone's knee jerk retort to what was being kept civil initially. TeeDee's perspective (his first post) being quite correct in that opposite perspective exists in all things and any negative claim can be presented in a positive -- it's called physics or physical dynamics and it applies to all aspects of life, not just where you want to place it and how you want to imply meaning for the sake of your own agenda & arguments. Again, one of the big shortcomings of today's more Cynical face of Skepticism; their attitudes are dogmatic and not inclusive of the greater whole.
Now enough of this talk though, let's get back on track