pjrv : Messages : 13?7-1340 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/13?7?? )
?
 ?3:00:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#13?7
 	
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 11:35 pm
Subject: Frontloading & Retasking 	dennanm

  	  	

I think the issue of getting the info from the tasker, ASSUMING one
has no contact with them of course, is a non-issue, not because
telepathy can't happen, but because it is unavoidable, and for all we
know some of psi is telepathy with ourselves in the future ... or
with anyone who's knowledgeable about the target, etc.

As a caveat I will say that in the case of taskers working with a
viewer regularly over time, I do believe rapport develops, and I do
suspect it becomes both a win/lose situation, depending on how that
is approached by the team.

It becomes a win situation because the viewer may gets better at
picking up detailed focus and even subtle intent consciously unknown
to the tasker but that they had, these may increase the more rapport
which is had. It can be a lose situation, if some kind of dependence
develops -- but I don't know if it would, I'm merely leaving that
open to speculation.

This assumes everything is double blind.  Rapport issues combined
with non-double-blind situations are IMO incredibly detrimental to
viewers.  But time will probably prove that out more effectively than
any of my ranting about it, so why bother.

Comments about what the tasker knows -- the tasker needs to know the
target situation.  If the tasker knew the 'target', they wouldn't
need remote viewing, now would they? :-? )

But tasking is a bit like detailed project management.  There is a
joke in many fields of work that customers bitch because you gave
them "exactly what they asked for but not what they wanted!"  In RV I
imagine that is even more an issue as most people aren't real
educated about it or experienced with it.  A tasker needs to be able
to consider the many aspects of how to find the information sought
and be able to assign different taskings for different people.  The
issue that gets confusing in discussion is that so often in the
layman's RV field, the tasker is ALSO the monitor.  That is
unworkable within protocol of course.

I may have misinterpreted some comments, but my point here is that
keeping the tasker 'blind' is funny -- unless one is sort of merging
the tasker/monitor roles, which many do, I don't see how that is
functional.  Much of what it is hoped a tasker can accomplish, they
need to have a very clear intent of exactly what info they would like
to have.  "Um, an answer!" is convenient, but probably not specific
enough I'd guess. :-? )

PJ

	
#1340
 	From: "Scott Ellis" 
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 9:5? am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking 	scottrver

  	  	

Hi PJ,

> But tasking is a bit like detailed project management.  There is a
> joke in many fields of work that customers bitch because you gave
> them "exactly what they asked for but not what they wanted!"  In RV I
> imagine that is even more an issue as most people aren't real
> educated about it or experienced with it.

Joe McMoneagle recommended to me once that I add to my routine to set
the intent to explicitly IGNORE the tasker's cueing/instructions and
simply retrieve all information required of the target.

Scott

----------------------------
Moderator's note: Well he'd know.  He is usually primarily trying to make
viewers understand that they are only, solely, responsible for their data, and
that the REAL target is "what is most important about the target" -- period,
although, the viewer's belief system weight on importance (to them? to the
tasker? to the police?  to the media 6 months later?  to themselves with
additional feedback 5 years later?? ) is a sort of big question.  He also comments
in his third RV Oasis/pjrv interview that his wife arranges 'targeting
materials' and what needs answered for him etc., which suggests that it's not
like she just writes down a name and he just does a session on 'whatever is
important' - she is functioning to some degree as a tasker, even if that merely
means splitting up things desired as info into 'separate' targets for example. 
There is more we could learn from Joe asking him about these subjects
specifically.  If only we could download his brain. :-? )  -- PJ

pjrv : Messages : 1334-1344 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1334?? )
?
 ?3:01:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1334
 	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 1?:16 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking 	maliolana

  	  	

Aloha PJ,

I am pretty sure I gave 'an' answer to Rich's tasking...but it was not
the one
he thought was the fact of the case......I have no firm idea
personally ... but
my session did look real interesting in that regard...The tasking part is
a bit esoteric at this point...but I did get answers...of some
anamoulous sort anyway...

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna

	
#1344
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 10:18 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Retasking 	greenmn900...

  	  	

PJ,

> You wrote:
> "If the tasker knew the "target", they
> wouldn't need remote viewing, now would they?"

Yes, PJ, they would - in applications - which I was referring to. But in
applications or in practice, the tasker should be blind to the exact target
that is currently being RVed.  This especially holds true in situations such
as mine, where the tasker  chooses and sets up the targets (I don't even want
to get into the RVer creating their own target pool - this creates a whole
new set of problems? ).  We do this by pulling the targets at random from a
large pool.  This way NO ONE knows exactly what the target is - so, the
tasker is almost as blind as the viewer.  The only exception to this scenario
is some other way of giving the Rver the target ID without any direct
communication - like doing it in writing.

So, I agree that the tasker should know what information is being sought, in
most cases.  But I still say the tasker, if they are to have any
communication with the viewer before the session, should not know when that
specific target is being Rved.

Warm Regards,
Don

You're right in that the tasker acts like a project manager.  But it's not a
good idea for your tasker, knowing what the target is, to give you a set of
coordinates or a number while they're looking you in the eye.  This isn't
doubleblind anymore.  That's why I think it's so important that targets be
done randomly or that a different person, also blind to the target, is the
one who communicates with the Rver.  I never use a monitor so that's never
been an issue with me.

-------------------------
Moderator's note: Howdy Don. Think we're talking apples and oranges here and we
don't disagree.  The tasker doesn't know the "exact" target, that is what is
being RV'd.  The tasker "knows what information is being sought."  The part of
my paragraph that didn't make it into your quote might've made that more clear I
think.  I don't know whether the tasker 'knowing when the session is going to
happen' matters or not.  We ought to ask other experienced viewers about this as
well, it's an interesting question.  If there is "no time" then I'm hard pressed
to think it should matter whether the tasker knows you're doing target XYZ now
or sees a week from now that you did it at that time/date.  Re: the last, I
mentioned the dichotomy where tasker is monitor and I wasn't referring to that,
because then most of the 'tasker rules' become monitor rules which are totally
different.  'Tasking' on something like practice is also a slightly different
subject, simply that 'operational' considerations may not be part of the mix.  I
think.  LOL.  PJ