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 : 578-584 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/578?) 2006/06/30 21:50:04
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#578

From: Weatherly-Hawaii... Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:35 am Subject: Re: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aloha guys, The last best great advice I received from Bevy Jaegers ...who I miss sooo much...was to make certain to get that PI liscence...Now I truly understand... ummmhmmm... How much are they?...Anybody know?...Then we can all be holier than thou and just wave our liscence at um...hahahah...seriously!...Sure would shut up some of those lower level lawyer types......and pompous/ hypocritical PI's...hahahah...The client made me do it!...hahahah Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna Reply | Forward

#579

From: Timelord2029... Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:49 am Subject: Re: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing psitrooper24 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi E- Got an answer for ya:) I think this is a pretty easy one to deal with. In joes case you will have a set of rules reagrding what can or cannot be veiwed the client is made aware of this and submits the target. the target iam sure gets screened by Joe's employess responsible for assesing the target then if it does not violate the rules joe has set it in place the target gets worked on. That way the veiwer is always protected and doesent have to worry about shady targeting of a dubious kind from a client. Peace, Tunde ------------------ Moderator's note: In Joe's case, if he had employees besides he and his wife, that might work. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#584

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:30 pm Subject: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 OK, I got the answer, but what was the question again? I am serious, the original question was not reprinted and I am not sure what this answer is supposed to relate to other than just the general topic. -E --- In pjrv...melord2029...te: > Hi E- > Got an answer for ya:) > I think this is a pretty easy one to deal with. > In joes case you will have a set of rules reagrding what can or cannot be veiwed > the client is made aware of this and submits the target. > the target iam sure gets screened by Joe's employess > responsible for assesing the target then if it does not > violate the rules joe has set it in place > the target gets worked on. > > That way the veiwer is always protected > and doesent have to worry about shady targeting of a dubious kind from a client. > > Peace, > Tunde > > ------------------ > Moderator's note: In Joe's case, if he had employees besides he and his wife, that might work. :-) PJ pjrv : Messages : 559-599 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/559?) 2006/06/30 21:53:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#559

From: joan003...k.net Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:01 pm Subject: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing joanie003 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 This is from Joe McMoneagle, Remote Viewing Secrets, p194-195. ".... True ethics is a matter of the heart. It is acknowledging that for every action we take, we are in some way affecting others, and this includes the environment, non-human life-forms; essentially everything we have to live in harmony with on the planet. Or if you subscribe to the idea, even entities we know nothing about whom live in the stars as well. There is a believe that since no one knows when or where a remote viewer or psychic penetrates reality, there are no ethical reasons why they shouldn't. This is clearly wrong. To begin with , the law regarding a person's privacy do exist with regard to a telephone tap or poking through private files. To assume it's okay to invade someone's privacy because it's telepathy and not yet specifically defined within the law is splitting hairs. While it may be awhile before the courts decide what to do about telepathy, it doesn't negate anyone's personal responsibility for upholding what was ethically intended by the Constitution. Even my editor suggested that until a law is written, the best anyone can do is "sympathize." I disagree. The least that anyone should do is acknowledge the intent and spirit of the law, and then follow it." on Privacy: "I would suggest that when it comes to remote viewing or psychic behavior, the same rules of privacy exist regarding individuals as do in any other case. It is unethical to pry, look, invade, or otherwise violate the personal privacy of an individual except at times and in ways allowed by law." Reply | Forward

#563

From: "dennanm" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:25 pm Subject: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Private investigators aren't under voyeur laws -- they're not seeking for fun, they're seeking for information, and the information is provided to others. Those others are NOT 'officials'. They may hide outside a house (on private property) and take photos (with an ultra zoom lens - through a window). On the other hand, they cannot break in through the back door. In the end though, the main thing is, the information is not for their viewing pleasure -- they're not a peeping Tom - they're getting those sexy photos for a client. And they do not generally provide the client info they did NOT request or that is not relevant to the tasking. I think RV (outside a viewer's private life, which I consider nobody else's business) has a lot more in common with PI's than say, the FBI or PD and whatever legal guidelines they must follow. ONE of many reasons being the 'legal authorities' who investigate have POWER. Many of the restricting laws are required to protect the people from a variety of unconstitutional tendencies. Viewers on the other hand, have no power, only potential info. Their information is in the same genre as say, a psychological profiler, or a stock analyst making a prediction. It may or may not even be right. It may be confusing, or misinterpreted by them or by the customer. More importantly, nothing can actually be DONE in a legal sense until REAL facts are obtained. RV's best hope is its ability to point the way to people and info for other forms of intell. On quoting Joe from that one book -- Remember that is coming from a guy who merely has to THINK about something for .007 of a second before more info is available to him on it than most people would get with a dozen person RV team and a three month project... he doesn't need to do sessions on stuff that's none of his business frankly, because psychic-sessions and moment to moment living are not all that separated for him. So, it sounds really good on paper, and it's easy for him to say, with more intelligence clearances and agency contacts than I have cat- fleas, that one should only work for 'official' tasking (he didn't say that, but Lyn does), or by-the-book in accordance with all laws (Joe said that)... so... ... that means the REST of planet earth who were NOT in Star Gate, have clearances, work for agencies, can.... let's see.... do volunteer work for a few rare orgs... do corporate work MAYBE... Oh wait! I know! We can RV photographs until we puke! (Ahem) Er, sorry. Got carried away there... PJ Reply | Forward

#571

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:06 am Subject: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hm, that brings up another question. WHat about the person who hires the PI? THat person is an ordinary person who shells out some dinero and now gets to see private pictures supplied by the PI. I wonder what kind of laws there are on that? Hm, you can't do it personally, but you can pay someone else with a license and then peek at all the stuff anyway via photos? I have never really thought of that before now. How does that compare to the rv question? Are we ethically allowed to rv something that a PI is ethically allowed to snoop on? Hmm, seems like I am chock fulla questions today but sadly lacking on answers.. -E > PJ wrote: > Private investigators aren't under voyeur laws -- they're not seeking > for fun, they're seeking for information, and the information is > provided to others. Those others are NOT 'officials'. > They may hide outside a house (on private property) and take photos > (with an ultra zoom lens - through a window). On the other hand, > they cannot break in through the back door. > In the end though, the main thing is, the information is not for > their viewing pleasure -- they're not a peeping Tom - they're getting > those sexy photos for a client. And they do not generally provide > the client info they did NOT request or that is not relevant to the > tasking. > I think RV (outside a viewer's private life, which I consider nobody > else's business) has a lot more in common with PI's than say, the FBI > or PD and whatever legal guidelines they must follow. Reply | Forward

#599

From: "Kyriakos" Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:00 pm Subject: RE: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing n0mind Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, You said: > Private investigators aren't under voyeur laws -- > they're not seeking for fun, they're seeking for > information, and the information is provided to > others. Those others are NOT 'officials'. > They may hide outside a house (on private property) > and take photos (with an ultra zoom lens - through > a window). On the other hand, they cannot break in > through the back door. > In the end though, the main thing is, the information > is not for their viewing pleasure -- they're not a > peeping Tom - they're getting those sexy photos for > a client. And they do not generally provide the > client info they did NOT request or that is not > relevant to the tasking. So basically, if I understand this correctly: A Private Investigator can legally take photos of your cheating partner or 'spy' on anyone they have been paid to, and then hand those same photos over to the client. Isn't that voyeurism through a 'licensed' third party? Maybe the emotional platform of the Investigator is not as a voyeur, but what about the clients? What constitutes invasion of privacy in relation to the tasking of, in this case, 'sexy' spying? maybe I am asking a naive question. Kyriakos ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Maybe not - but you're asking a question I certainly don't know the answer to. What I wrote above may not even be correct -- I am not an expert on the subject. I know that PI's have a helluva lot of laws they themselves are bound by, and getting a PI license in some states, such as CA, is incredibly difficult, and even requires working in a formal already licensed PI firm for a year, and things like that. There may be laws about the 'intended purpose' of information collected, and there may be laws about the use of that information as well. It's probably a big subject. I imagine the internet has some info on it. I was only using that comparison to say that a viewer for hire is closer to a PI in my mind, than to, say, a federal investigator. Constitutional laws don't change, but the jobs have different methods and restrictions or leeway, differing partly I imagine on the fact that PI's have no 'power' (like to arrest someone based on their info) while the authorities do. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#572

From: "k9caninek9" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:57 am Subject: Re: Joe McMoneagle on the Ethics of Privacy in Remote Viewing k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hmm, I have to wonder if all the military viewers were totally ethical and followed these guidelines during all their black ops missions and assignments in the military. Was it all OK cuz they were doing it on nonAmericans? Do we even know they were doing it on nonAmericans? Why was RI protocol invented? Was it all OK even if people were killed on the basis of the RV info? Was it all OK because the government told them to do it? Is it not just a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? Is it OK for Kenneth Star to peek but not for rvers? I respect anyone's right to have opinions on this issue. But I think it is wise to maintain perspective at the same time. Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? (other than the courts) What's that old saying, "Judge not lest ye be judged." (I assume you all remember the author of that one..) -E Reply | Forward

#573

From: "Docrose_22" Hmm, I have to wonder if all the military viewers were totally > ethical and followed these guidelines during all their black ops > missions and assignments in the military. I would tend to believe that when first trained in RV that they were just as awed as anyone when they started doing targets. I'm sure they too may have done something they shouldn't have. I'm not saying they do it as a habit, just think it might be human nature to wonder about something's and maybe be tempted to "see" more than they should. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there are some people in this world that haven't ever done anything wrong. > Was it all OK cuz they > were doing it on nonAmericans? Do we even know they were doing it on > nonAmericans? Why was RI protocol invented? Was it all OK even if > people were killed on the basis of the RV info? Was it all OK > because the government told them to do it? Good question "E." I for one don't believe something is OK just because our Government told us to do it. Sometimes I hate the way the government manipulates people in the name of freedom, justice and the American way. However, I in no way feel what our guys did was in anyway something that they should feel responsible for personally. And, I believe that many of them do. I have written on my thoughts of the war and what I think it did to our men and women before. What a shame that so many peoples minds are screwed up because they tried to keep America free or keep themselves alive. I think that is why I hold a very special place in my heart for people that have served our country. I personally feel, if I could give my life so not one more young man or woman has to die in war, I would be honored to do so. However, that just isn't possible. Why, because the leaders won't let it happen. They all want to be King of the Hill and will risk other peoples lives doing it. Of course, these are only my opinions. And, I may not know what I'm talking about. I'll let others enlighten me if they wish. I'm always open to others thoughts. Even if I disagree with them ;-). > Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Well, the courts do to a point. But, I feel as human being we have the right to make up our own minds. Sure we may be persecuted for it, but we still have the right. I don't know how it will ever be able to be controlled what we will do with our minds, because if we don't share what we have viewed how can anyone prove what we have done. Again, just my thoughts on the subject. Arlene Reply | Forward

#576

From: "scottrver" Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:42 am Subject: RI Protocol? scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I assume RI is remote influencing, but what is the RI protocol? --- In pjrv...9caninek9" Why was RI protocol invented? > > -E

// 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