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