Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : 3952-3958 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3952?) 2006/07/01 16:21:28
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3952

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:17 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) ozblueriver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hey PJ now that's a great idea. It would be a good place to go for finding lost glasses and car keys which can be a crisis but not serious enough to be a 'health' issue for RV in general. You could call it something like, 'Ask Sherlock'. LOL cheers Liz Reply | Forward

#3953

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 4:32 am Subject: RE: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 LOL! I like the name Liz. Yes, the lighthearted approach would be better I believe. If there's success doing the small things then word will spread anyway and people will come, not only out of curiosity, but also perhaps to ask about the more important things. If we have no financial interest or grand claims to live up to then the scoffers will have absolutely nothing to get their teeth into....though they will try of course :-). Until we're good enough at producing psi on demand we can only tolerate or ignore them. The really nasty ones that you have had experience of PJ..well that's different, and if that happens I suggest details be disclosed and we should all get together and discuss what can be done about it. Regards, Glyn > Liz wrote: > You could call it something like, 'Ask Sherlock'. LOL Reply | Forward

#3954

From: Timelord2029... Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 9:37 am Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) psitrooper24 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > If we do go forward with this non-analytical, entry-level project that > includes public-need type taskings, would it be better to present it in a > lighthearted, even half-humorous way? Hi PJ, cant say much for now but iam not quite sure what to say about public involvement until i see what mercy street is really about. I would prefer that the project was purely for Rvers who are actualy "doing" rv as opposed to open invites to Joe Public to come and ask endless questions or set up tasks just to prove to someone RV is indeed workable or set up nefarious taskings. If we keep it open for pure practical RV demonstrations that way i fail to see how all the negative stuff can come into play. I like the idea about keeping the whole thing fun but it will be fun only to those that actualy DO practical RV as opposed to other external interests which non rv public may have in mind. Still not sure how the whole format works here are there going to be group categorizations and various level options such as beginner, intermediate or Advanced or is everyhing going to be lumped into one open gallery?? iam i making any sense ? ;-) Peace, Tunde Reply | Forward

#3955

From: TaraMori... Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 12:27 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) mahamati8 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Liz wrote: > You could call it something like, 'Ask Sherlock'. LOL LOL I like this. Tamra Reply | Forward

#3957

From: TaraMori... Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 12:26 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) mahamati8 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > PJ wrote: > c - change it into something that only mentions "possible" accuracy, > and presents more as 'fun', which legally is safer ground (psi work is > generally considered "entertainment"); and > d - just in general, give the whole thing a much different feel, > serious yet lighthearted for viewers, and lighthearted but > occasionally serious for potential requestors. PJ, It sounds like you'd be changing the intent significantly and giving it a feel of 'hey we don't believe this stuff either. It's just for fun' as well as attracting non-serious targets, which if I read right, goes against the original intent of allowing new viewers to tap into the feeling of a tasking mattering in some way. Since I fall into that category of psi being highly active when something actually matters, mercy street caught my interest as a learning tool. I doubt this new format would be as useful to me in learning for that reason although it might be as good or even better for others. I also strongly agreed with your comments about detractors and going forward in the field rather than living in the shadow of reaction to potential lawsuits, dissent from wingnut ranters, etc. I saved all of your posts to read together when i had time and just read them ....I was surprised when I got to this one because I was still cheering for the stance you took on moving forward in legitimacy. I don't know.... laughing at ourselves has a place, but it seems more appropriate after actually doing something ridiculously stupid than as a defense against people poking fun or harassing one in the future. In my experience, if you hand people like that any ammo at all, they use it and so making it humorous for the reasons you stated strikes me as handing out 'RV is a joke' ammo. You think things through well and see contingencies, so I feel a bit presumptuous commenting. Ah well, two more cents won't make or break the intent. I guess I'm just saying I liked what I read and felt about your original intent and wouldn't like to see an entirely new one worked up due to the presence on earth of people with little vision and even less heart. Tamra Reply | Forward

#3958

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 6:17 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Tamra, Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. > It sounds like you'd be changing the intent significantly Well, certainly the presentation of the intent, anyway, true. Not my intent itself but maybe those are inextricable to everyone else. > the original intent of allowing new viewers to tap into > the feeling of a tasking mattering in some way. Yeah... it was not intended for 'crisis' targets (e.g. missing children, criminal stuff). But yes, it was intended for 'real' targets, since even small stuff on the surface may have real import to the people asking. > I doubt this new format would be as useful to me in > learning for that reason Now you see, that is good feedback, and I appreciate you saying it. If we approach this with humor so even the VIEWERS don't take it seriously (or, so it skews tasking requests toward the silly), then we might have defeated the purpose of the program. I guess that is probably true. I had hoped there was some middle ground, of doing something relatively serious (from viewer point of view) while presenting it as "good effort, but mostly fun" from the public point of view--but perhaps you're right. Maybe that divides intent and causes other problems, rather than really resolving anything. > and just read them ....I was surprised when I got to this > one because I was still cheering for the stance you took > on moving forward in legitimacy. :-) What you're seeing is that I am trying to address all feedback squarely and take it seriously -- and, that I am trying to brainstorm some way of addressing the things that cause viewers concern. I am wide open to any ideas people have about ways of making this kind of project happen--which I think is a good thing--without dooming it to problems so big they would eclipse harming only TKR. The issues of viewers, I won't deal with, as they put TKR in a position of judgement, non-anonymity and other things. But the issues of the public and deliberate harm to the project, me, TKR, RV at large, these are serious and should be addressed. There is always a way. The "Reality Devas" as I call them, have proved that to me so many times. If I don't see it, it's just because I don't have the right perspective... the answer is always there. So I want to hash this out. I want other viewers to be forthright enough to comment. I want, on a psi level, the viewers reading this list who care about RV and operations and the community and the future of RV in our world, to be working out something that contributes to the energy and manifestation of what we're talking about. I'm sure many will consider me too much a mystic, but I believe this happens in any group, any community, anyway. I want to make it happen on purpose. In reality, the concept of the program and its problems and merits, is something at issue for the entire remote viewing community. These problems, of scoffers, of competition in the field, of psychologically unstable individuals on the fringes of the field, attempting to do harm to people or groups or efforts, even to the point of stalking or deliberately antagonizing or doing backend social destruction person-by-person, these are serious problems. We can see already that they affect how groups and viewers feel about all kinds of things, what people will do or share in public, whether people will reveal their names, or even want to go near the internet for this topic--or, as we see, whether even serious viewers who want to do ops work and want to see RV being used in ops are willing to back the idea of even a small non-crisis program because, among other things, of the 'vulnerability' we have. As a community, we have not had a great deal of immunity to attacks, partly because we have not had a great deal of community frankly. These are things we should be aware of and, to whatever degree possible, work together to come up with--if not solutions, at least ideas to minimize, how badly they can hurt us and RV. > so I feel a bit presumptuous commenting. No, please -- I WANT comments. I never have a problem with someone disagreeing with me -- what drives me nuts is when people have opinions and say nothing, or are interested in something but do zero to support it, and then later just shrug that things didn't go their way, or good opportunities no longer exist because they got no support from the small number of people in a place to care. If you put in your comments, you are positively contributing, regardless of what those comments are. I appreciate your posting. I'm trying to do something that is field-wide, which means I want as much input as I can get. Since some areas are prone to be negative no matter what the topic, I am doing it here, because I know we will have adult discussion here. And, because eventually (yes... I know I am 15 months behind...) it will be archived on Firedocs, and be part of the history people someday look back on, to see what factors were part of the development of our field. > I guess I'm just saying I liked what I read and felt > about your original intent and wouldn't like to see an > entirely new one worked up due to the presence on earth > of people with little vision and even less heart. I grok. OK. Thanks for letting me know. It helps. Anybody else have thoughts on this issue, in any direction? PJ pjrv : Messages : 3951-3972 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3951?) 2006/07/01 16:21:40
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3951

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sat Jul 1, 2006 4:21 pm Subject: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I long ago noticed that when discussing RV, if I told people I was lousy nobody ever asked me to demonstrate. Nor did even my enemies feel any further need to diss my alleged lack of omniscience. Apparently everyone believes me easily LOL, in the same way people believe 'confessed sinners' just 'cause they can't imagine anybody admitting anything even if they DID do it, let alone if they didn't. I saw Eva mention this same thing not long ago on TKR and cracked up, as I had just been thinking about that very issue. It's like that joke about how you can tell someone there are officially 192,651,967,182,019,042 stars in the sky and they might believe you, but if the sign on the bench says "wet paint" they might have to touch it to check and be sure. It occurred to me that perhaps the whole idea of Mercy Street is the right intent but the wrong approach to something like this. And by the way: thanks to those of you who responded, on list and via PEM, I really needed input. There now, don't all you loafing lurkers feel badly?? Yeah, probably not. :-) Well, never mind then... Since the project would NOT be taking any form of 'crisis' viewing AND it would be avoiding most overly 'serious' stuff that has a potential for dangerous use/response to data, maybe... ...rather than making this a really serious, 'mercy' kind of thing, it should be presented as a partly-humorous, 'half-joking but not entirely' kind of thing. Instead of a long serious caveat/waiver about the data, maybe we'd do better just to make the whole thing fun: "Is this info going to be accurate? Maybe not... but once in awhile, some sure seems to be!" Perhaps if we make it into something FUN, a little humorous and yet also a "hey you never know, give a try!" kind of mood, we will: a - inspire fewer scoffers to feel a need to 'set us down' for claiming 'psi powers' or whatever, since none of it would be taken seriously (a little--for those in "need" it'll have a little of that, and for serious viewers it will, but in general on the outside it'd just be 'fun'); b - inspire any grumpy field-folks who'd complain to just make fun of us in their own spheres rather than go out of their way to try and harm the project publicly; c - change it into something that only mentions "possible" accuracy, and presents more as 'fun', which legally is safer ground (psi work is generally considered "entertainment"); and d - just in general, give the whole thing a much different feel, serious yet lighthearted for viewers, and lighthearted but occasionally serious for potential requestors. This might have the side-benefit of not only bringing in fewer 'heavy- serious' requests we wouldn't do anyway, but of making people more comfortable asking for the smaller things. It is likely to bring in more 'esoteria' presented that way. But, we can respond by bringing those suggestions into the Missions Gallery, so some would still get addressed, just in a different way. I've no idea what to call it in this case... open to ideas. And I don't want the viewers to get the idea that it's not taken seriously for viewing--viewing is always taken seriously, yet should also be fun. What do you guys think? If we do go forward with this non-analytical, entry-level project that includes public-need type taskings, would it be better to present it in a lighthearted, even half-humorous way? Would that make it seem any more acceptable and less threatening? PJ Reply | Forward

#3972

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hm, I like that idea. Maybe you could call it "Where's Waldo?" (if that phrase isn't already trademarked!) -E > PJ wrote: > Instead of a long serious caveat/waiver about > the data, maybe we'd do > better just to make the whole thing fun: pjrv : Messages : 3956-3974 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3956?) 2006/07/01 16:21:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3956

From: "PJ Gaenir" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 6:34 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Howdy Tunde, And thanks for input, I appreciate it. I assume that any thought one person has, lots of people have, so it's all great to think about and address. > I would prefer that the project was purely for Rvers who are > actualy "doing" rv Hmmmn. Well... anybody participating is viewing, right? The only way to be part of it, is to submit data/session on a dblind tasking. You must mean "viewing sufficiently much to qualify as a 'real' viewer outside of those taskings"...? I could build in that viewers need X quantity sessions per month/etc. in-system. But that would exclude people who view outside TKR's sphere. That won't work, esp. since most serious viewers already have commitments that obviously don't include TKR and there's only so much viewing one can do in 24/7. Who would decide someone viewed... 'enough'? What constitutes enough? I know people who can do 5 ARV sessions a day and not blink, and others that can do one ERV session a week they need at least 7 days to recover from and integrate. But wait, there's more. :-) TKR allows anonymity. The system doesn't know anything about who a viewer is or what they do. So even if they _did_ do a lot of RV, how would we know?? > as opposed to open invites to Joe Public to come and ask > endless questions Well, taskings are not created by the public, they are requested by the public. Taskings are created by a Wizop or whomever they appoint to do it, for probably a small number of potentially workable cases--there is a filter, of course, on what ends up tasked. It's not like some arbitrary whim from someone who decided to click a button for fun is going to be in there. There'll be considerable follow up with the requestors prior to anything getting accepted as a case and tasked. > or set up tasks just to prove to someone RV is indeed workable > or set up nefarious taskings. You mean 'the public' is likely to include people who don't really need something, or just want to cause trouble. Yeah, it's possible. > If we keep it open for pure practical RV demonstrations that > way i fail to see how all the negative stuff can come into > play. True. The Mercy Street concept (however it ended up presented) was not planned as any form of 'practical RV demonstration'. It's a program for giving viewers a chance to do non-crisis 'real world' targets to see what it's like. It's totally private--no demonstration. There'd be no public or members display of that data. Only a passworded PDF file to the client--who'd be signing something saying it would be used for no purpose other than potentially contributing to resolving the problem or question and would not be posted publicly without written permission. But all the Galleries are practical RV demonstration--the Demo (and Peanut) galleries display all the data/sessions done for the Practice, Mission and Window galleries. > Still not sure how the whole format works here are there > going to be group categorizations and various level options > such as beginner, intermediate or Advanced or is everyhing > going to be lumped into one open gallery?? Galleries-wide there are some things which are considered 'advanced options' and have to specifically be requested, they aren't automatic with registration. This includes 'advanced' practice targets (including controversial materials, or violence/death in the taskings); this includes the whole Missions Gallery and all its taskings; and this includes whatever such a public-needs program would end up being called. These three things are separate and applied for separately, and are considered 'advanced options' of membership. We cannot judge who/what deserves what level, esp. since the system allows anonymity. It's their choice. As for the public-needs program, initially it would have to be all one tasking group, because the system has no way to judge viewers and is open to everyone. I suppose over time, the program could evolve another level(s) of operation, where those doing fairly well (this might have to be judged more by tasking context than FB, as FB might not be avail) could be exposed to slightly more complex or higher level taskings. I guess it'd be possible to migrate to that, if it seemed warranted, although I really dread the politics of arranging who'd decide such things. Initially though, the project wouldn't even be taking those kinds of taskings, for sheer reason of not having the demonstrated viewer caliber or other important factors Jon addressed to merit them. Only time would tell if enough viewers participate to show merit for more complex work. (If they have it but don't participate in TKR, well, then we don't know they have it there, and it'll probably never happen.) Consider too, that I am trying to fill a lot of voids and weave together some tools and community that will strengthen and support the field and its diverse components--not to compete with them. That doesn't mean we can't do practice or life tasks just 'cause somebody else is, of course. But it does mean that my focus is on viewer development here, not ops. The public- needs idea was borne out of a wish to give viewers a chance to try out these kind of taskings, not out of altruism to save the world with RV (as good an ideal as it is). My first focus is supporting viewers in developing skill. I might do something someday to support RV's use in practical ways and offer other options to the field at a more advanced level. But that is not on the list of plans for TKR. Which means if it came up, it'd have to be voted in by Wizop Council later on. I choose what to build to start--with feedback considered--but once it's live, TKR management drives its detail and operation, and I'm only one of many there. They might not want to open it up to more, who knows. Logistically, it wouldn't be practical until the skill was evidenced anyway. That will take some time. We'll have to wait and see. Again, I really appreciate your input. I share your concerns about 'misuse' of public-request options, and while we can't guarantee nothing like that will happen, I can try to structure the application process in a way that will minimize it, and the program presentation in a way that will minimize inspiration. That might mean that, between turning away 'too serious' or 'crisis' taskings, overly intimate/no-FB/dangerous taskings, and making folks step through many hoops to get a case opened for their 'non-crisis' questions, that we might in fact have very very FEW tasks available for viewing even if we DO open the program. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3959

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) sharwebb_30512 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 PJ, It seems to me that if it's not presented seriously, then it won't accomplish what you outlined. Instead, it would be the "Kreskin" of RV --- slightly tongue in cheek, and sniggering up its sleeve. Why should the comments of malcontents matter? They don't need to be given a forum on the site. It seems to me that Mercy Street oughtta stand or fall on its own merits. However, it may need a shakedown period. It could be kept private for a while, if it's not ready for prime time. Just my two cents, too. Sharon sharwebb...et www.fractalus.com/sharon Reply | Forward

#3960

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Sharon, Thanks for posting on this. > It seems to me that if it's not presented seriously, > then it won't accomplish what you outlined. Instead, > it would be the "Kreskin" of RV --- slightly tongue > in cheek, and sniggering up its sleeve. Now that's a yucky image. :-) > Why should the comments of malcontents matter? > They don't need to be given a forum on the site. Comments don't matter. Concerted efforts to do harm in the media or legally, by 'fake' requests or 'you-caused-me-trauma-or-misleading' responses to info, are I think the only real concerns. Hell, I've enough concern about viewers themselves. Recently, a person told me that during their few days of basic-level training, they became possessed and/or channeled and were so torqued by it that eventually they were on the verge of a psychotic break and would have sued their trainer because hey, waivers quit standing up in court long ago. All this out of learning to scribble and write a few words about a simple target. It really made me realize what a potential for litigation the whole topic of psi can be, if people who are psychologically unstable or just litigious for their own reasons are involved. In a project wide open to the public, that can be a concern, not because they'd win, but because who can afford to defend against it even if one is in the right? And if something gets in the media, a lot of damage can be done the whole RV field and the project, regardless of how unfair (and even untrue) whatever's in the media might be. Perhaps it's that the last 8 years have made viewers oversensitive to the worst case scenarios, because darn it, people keep bringing those worst case scenarios to bear. Just when we think it can't possibly get any worse than it has already been, we realize it can, LOL! > It seems to me that Mercy Street oughtta stand > or fall on its own merits. You mean, I assume, that it shouldn't try to hide its nature by humor, but should just be what it is, and it lives or dies by that. Maybe you're right. > However, it may need a shakedown period. It could > be kept private for a while, if it's not ready for prime time. Well, it's actually already private. I mean, the tasking requests would come from the public, so we can't actually not have the public know, or we wouldn't end up with any cases. The viewing part of it, that is always private. Not even inside the Galleries do the sessions show. They are given to the client and that's the end of it. So it's not like we are putting all this in public... only the fact that we accept SOME requests and will provide whatever data we get for them, would be public. No sessions or viewers would be. I'm glad you weighed in on this, I appreciate your thoughts. Palyne Reply | Forward

#3961

From: Penny Zingery Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 7:46 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pzingery Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > > It seems to me that if it's not presented seriously, > > then it won't accomplish what you outlined. Instead, > > it would be the "Kreskin" of RV --- slightly tongue > > in cheek, and sniggering up its sleeve. I agree with what Sharon says. I'd play it straight, and let it stand on its own merits. Lately, in order to reach a broader audience in the ghost world, (and those who haven't a clue), an author or two has written a more popular-type book, in order to reach them on their level, as a starting point from which they could build and actually learn something. But the overall content was still retained, and the message was still the same. What a lot of us try to do is "raise the bar," in an effort to get people to see that there's a lot more to learn that what they've previously thought. And to do that, we have to retain a certain air of seriousness when we present what we do. (The amateur ghost hunters and producers of "spooky" ghost shows more than take up the slack, when they present the topic of ghosts as a form of entertainment.) I think it must be the same in a lot of ways, concerning RV and a lot of beginners... regarding the way that people normally start out, and the changes they more than likely go through, once they start learning about what remote viewing actually entails. I see no reason to either dumb the site down, or make it something other than it is. I'd think that any review of the site in any press, too, would reflect better on the field, and on your product, too, if you stay true to your ideals. Skeptics and any critical press won't understand, anyway, and they always find something to snigger at, no matter how it's presented. So, give them the best you've got! You can't go wrong there. And I'd make sure I had a good disclaimer when people registered or signed up or whatever, to cover all bases. As people will be watching... you can't get away from that... and there will always be those who have some kind of beef. Disclaimers are what we have at our disposal when we go into people's homes, on a ghost investigation. That's what the Boundary Institute does, too, when anyone signs up for the psi tests, which releases them from liability. Also, it costs money to pursue a lawsuit. And most people won't be willing to do that. I can't think of one lawsuit right now in the past couple of years that any skeptics have mounted. My concern would be mostly with the general populace. Penny Reply | Forward

#3962

From: TaraMori... Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) mahamati8 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > PJ wrote: > Hell, I've enough concern about viewers themselves. But, PJ, how seriously would a litigator, judge or jury take someone making such a claim? Were it even to get to court, I have a hard time seeing it taken seriously by judge or jury. In the case of Mercy Street, a statement like you proposed in the humour post makes sense ie: 'We ain't guaranteein' you'll get answers or even that viewers won't come and possess your stuffed teddy bears in their quest to check out your situation, but if you wanna have a go at it, submit your request.' Flippancy aside, has anyone ever successfully litigated harm from having a viewing session? Did a case ever get to court? Tamra Reply | Forward

#3963

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 9:16 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Tamra, > has anyone ever successfully litigated harm from having a > viewing session? Did a case ever get to court? I don't know. I think it'd be a helluva hard sell. I wouldn't worry about the legal issues so much as that by being vulnerable even for a filing, the media could pick it up. There's enough people afraid of psi already, or afraid it's the work of the devil, etc. Most folks encountering RV in the media, thanks to a few infamous sorts, already think viewers are nuts. It wouldn't be a big stretch to get a lot of people to believe that RV is dangerous. This only matters if for example, some unbalanced obsessive or some fundie group gets a wild hair about it and decides to make the downfall of a group, person or field their focus. I know a guy who's part of mgmt for an occult org. Most the occult discussion on usenet is inundated with the most horrible porn spam imaginable and so they die, and the average person can't expect to get intelligent conversation there, wouldn't wade through it, and would probably be attacked by people acting crazy if they did. Here's the kicker: it mostly comes from religious fundie groups! (The church/org has tracked it--they know.) These groups believe they're "fighting fire with fire" by doing "anything in their power to stand in the way of satan"--so, coming en masse into any group and acting like maniacs, or doing things like porn spam is, to them, noble in the name of christ or whatever. I know it's bizarre. So far RV has escaped that kind of attention. But the media's deadly. Who knows that it might take only one story, on a slow news day, with the right angle, to set off something or someone that'd just be a royal pain in the butt to deal with for years. It's only potential but better safe than sorry if it's possible. These issues wouldn't keep me from doing what I wanted. They would cause me to build in a lot of "you gotta prove you want it" in the system so no legal claim would stand a chance though. Hopefully the regular viewers won't be too put off by having to walk through a few info/disclaimer forms for the sake of it all. PJ Reply | Forward

#3973

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 5:02 pm Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 The big big problem here is that it still would take a lot of money just to get a case thrown out of court. I agree with the plan of not doing anything too serious. IMO, if we were to tackle missing children cases and stuff like that, then we would have an obligation to throw lots of resources and knowhow at it in order to make sure we do more good than harm and to minimize risk. And there are already groups that work on that kind of thing. And if we aren't going to do heavy stuff, I do think we should change the name. "Mercy street" is a very heavy name, IMO. I like the 'Sherlock' idea cuz it fits for tasking other than just location finding. On the other hand, there is a fine line between humour and ridicule. I think we should keep it light and fun, but just try not to go so far as to be ridiculing ourselves. It's sort of like when you go for a hair cut at one of those training schools. You aren't saying they can't cut hair, but at the same time, if the hair cut isn't great, you have no one to blame but yourself. Even with mundane missing item stuff, you will get people who have lost their dear and beloved prized family heirlooms and stuff like that. People who have had items stolen might even consider acting on any info we give including contronting prospective thieves. They may not even tell you they suspect the item was stolen. Even in 'light' form, this project will already be heavy enough. I could imagine this as a place for new viewers to cut their teeth on ops targets while still being relatively safe from massive bad repercussions. If you ask me, there is currently no place that offers that. Most places are either murdered children or nothing. -E Reply | Forward

#3964

From: TaraMori... Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) mahamati8 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > This only matters if for example, some unbalanced obsessive or some > fundie group gets a wild hair about it and decides to make the > downfall of a group, person or field their focus. More and more, the US is feeling like a theocracy with totally inane folks pushing for their version of 'the last days' so hard that they're bringing it about. I should say they're pushing 'against the forces of satan' but can't see it that way given all they do to usher in armageddon (or whatever it is they believe has to happen for them to get their reward). Am I off topic? Probably, but you answered my law suit question and as far as the christian influences over the media and political stances, ... sigh. It's how it is. Imo, we can expect increasing doses of 'those remote viewer's are playing with the devil' and other such rubbish. Tamra Reply | Forward

#3965

From: Penny Zingery Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 11:13 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pzingery Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 What comes to mind for me, would be if someone took it upon themselves to be considered a certified remote viewer by association with the web site, and started doing things on their own; or fraudulently representing themselves as something they weren't. A remote viewer by association, so to speak, who might then do something that someone else would consider to be a harm. At times when lawsuits get filed, everyone and their dog can be named, in order to ensure that the right person gets served. Especially if it's thought that someone (or some entity) has the resources or insurance to fund some type of possible recovery. Many of us fear that it's only a matter of time before some ghost hunter does something really stupid in someone's home, or makes some lawmaker aware of the fact that there are people out there "counseling" people on their fear of ghosts, who don't have a therapist license. I know of two here in Texas, as a matter of fact, who've advertised themselves as therapists on psychologist web sites, and I think, in a phone book. Then, too, you might run across a situation where someone might contact someone off the site, somehow, and harm them in a way that had nothing to do with remote viewing... like a stalker, rapist, or something like that. Or some type of fraud. We had a mold case awhile back at the law firm where I work, where a woman claimed that she started seeing ghosts, due to the affects the mold caused her. She threw in everything but the kitchen sink in order to make something stick. I don't remember what happened. I think she did receive a settlement, but it had nothing to do with her ghost claims. Penny Reply | Forward

#3969

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:30 am Subject: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Penny, > What comes to mind for me, would be if > someone took it upon themselves > to be considered a certified remote viewer > by association with the web site, and > started doing things on their own; That constitutes a solid percentage of people making money off RV, you know. ;-) As there are no legal requirements for credential (and that's a GOOD thing, for other reasons), there is nothing to keep someone from taking a weekend seminar then hanging out a shingle as an expert and selling services, either as a viewer or as a trainer. Happens all the time. > or fraudulently > representing themselves as > something they weren't. I probably don't need to point out this may be an even bigger issue than the above already. ;-) The ones really making a profit don't just train or go on the radio, they write books, too. Or as I said in a firedocs intro long ago, "Now it's every prophet for his profit!" Or something. > A remote viewer by > association, so to speak, who might > then do something that someone else > would consider to be a harm. Ah, yes. I have plenty of emails over time through my firedocs website, from people who've taken training in one or sometimes more methods, who are seriously disturbed, and some IMO are literally a danger to others if not themselves. It would be obvious from anybody who spent 15 minutes talking with them that they should never have been exposed to RV that closely in the first place, but since training is about money, and often done in groups, that often is overlooked. I find it nothing short of miraculous that this hasn't resulted in more notable effects in the field or the media already. > Then, too, you might run across a situation > where someone might contact > someone off the site, somehow, and harm them > in a way that had nothing > to do with remote viewing... Yeah, the internet's already high risk for that kind of thing. > a woman claimed that she started seeing > ghosts, due to the affects the > mold caused her. That's hilarious. The burden of proof would require her demonstrating she could or had really seen ghosts, would it not? That would be a helluva thing to try and prove. Even people who DO see ghosts generally can't prove it. > I think she did receive a settlement, but it > had nothing to do with her ghost claims. Maybe to do with shutting her up and getting rid of her. Which kinda takes us back to the original context 'legal harrassment' came up in, in the first place. I've been thinking about the various responses on the list, and I'm really grateful for all the input. I actually see the POV well with all of them, even those which don't agree with each other, which is a little bit complicated. I keep coming back to what I said in my first post to Jon, that I feel like I have to have faith, that it's important to focus on a positive belief. Still, since I want to help, not harm, recognizing and facing whatever issues might come up is important. I appreciate your input Penny. PJ Reply | Forward

#3967

From: "elittlestar P. R." Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:08 am Subject: RE: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) elittlestar Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ it is a debate whether to respond or not... it amounts to almost the same worries about attack or not or what kind... to me it is all good .. as it is all a learning experience... why would one have to complain about how long it took to solve an issue... why not complain about how long it takes to make a human baby compared to how long it takes for an elephant to make a baby elephant... to me all issues take their own time ... "He who has not tasted the bitter does not understand the sweet"... Chinese fortune cookie... i cant believe how so many people treat a BB as if it was like a bad life experience, that needs controls, laws, rules, guide lines, policing, sign up, log in, ... just divorce yourself form the issue until it passes ...leave the issue to those who can handle it... just like waiting your turn in a line at the market or a popular restaurant ... there is no waiting at a place that has limited fair or closes too early. Wait until we are all implanted with a chip that can be put in you, checked by a scanner ... so every thing you do or buy or log on, is controlled by having you scan yourself in first ... great universal banking included so no need to carry money or credit cards... Just my 2 cents to the pot...
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group------------- ...........~*Pame*~ @~~@ *What are you thinking of now!* __________________________ Reply | Forward

#3968

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 12:23 am Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) sharwebb_30512 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 PJ, You're right about the fundies infiltrating news groups; I've seen it. And anything with a faint whiff of "New Age" will bring out the fundies, but there's so much of it around it would be impossible for them to keep up with everything. But news groups of all sort are notorious for porn spam anyway. With a web site, you have control. The only way it can be attacked is by hackers, provided you don't have an open-to-all forum available. I sorta kinda think we get what we focus on, and if we were to focus on being helpful rather than focusing on what _might_ happen, then, who knows? :-) And if something WERE to break in the media, it will be quickly drowned out by some new story. The public has a very short memory. At any rate, I think the disclaimer is a good idea. That's how the alternate health people get around the FDA. What I meant by keeping it private for a time for a shake-down cruise was to maybe solicit questions from within and see how that goes before going public with it. Maybe you are doing that already, but I'm way behind in my list catchup and I'm reading latest first. As far as nutcase litigants go, they come in all flavors, and if you had an ice cream parlor, or ran a volunteer fire department, or offered a free preschool for homeless people's kids, you could run into one of them there just as easily, I think. Sharon sharwebb...et www.fractalus.com/sharon Reply | Forward

#3974

From: Penny Zingery Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:56 pm Subject: Re: Re: Humor as a shield (was: Mercy Street) pzingery Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi, PJ, > > if someone took it upon themselves > > to be considered a certified remote viewer > > by association with the web site, and > That constitutes a solid percentage of people making money off RV, > you know. ;-) *** Yeah, I guess you're right, haha. Regarding remote viewing, there are a lot more possibilities for training than what we do. Although, some researchers do offer educational opportunities for those that would like to do that. And then there are ethical guidelines that we all have to abide by. Or else, it's a very small world, and you'll find yourself out in the cold if you cross any ethical lines. > > or fraudulently > > representing themselves as > > something they weren't. > I probably don't need to point out this may be an even bigger issue > than the above already. ;-) *** That's been my experience, too. > > A remote viewer by > > association, so to speak, who might > > then do something that someone else > > would consider to be a harm. > I find it > nothing short of miraculous that this hasn't > resulted in more notable > effects in the field or the media already. *** I've experienced any number of problems with people who've tried to gain credibility by association. That happens quite frequently. I've run across a number who were unarguably disturbed, too. Double trouble, if you know what I mean. > > a woman claimed that she started seeing > > ghosts, due to the affects the > > mold caused her. > That's hilarious. The burden of proof would require her demonstrating > she could or had really seen ghosts, would it not? That would be a > helluva thing to try and prove. Even people who DO see ghosts > generally can't prove it. *** I know! We had a good laugh over that one, haha. She didn't have a legal leg to stand on, but it sure brought some comic relief to the office. Some of the arguments that people (and attorneys) will use to build a case, are just too much sometimes. > > I think she did receive a settlement, but it > > had nothing to do with her ghost claims. > Maybe to do with shutting her up and getting rid of her. Which kinda > takes us back to the original context 'legal harrassment' came up in, > in the first place. *** I think the majority of those mold cases are a "load," if you ask me. But, under the law, if you meet certain requirements and build a good enough case, (as in any other case), well... > I've been thinking about the various responses on the list, and I'm > really grateful for all the input. I actually see the POV well with > all of them, even those which don't agree with each other, which is a > little bit complicated. > I keep coming back to what I said in my first post to Jon, that I > feel like I have to have faith, that it's important to focus on a > positive belief. Still, since I want to help, not harm, recognizing > and facing whatever issues might come up is important. I appreciate > your input Penny. *** Thanks, PJ. I think your heart and mind are in the right place. And what's that saying, "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel." Penny --------------------- Or "Have faith--but row away from the rocks." And so on. ;-) PJ

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info