pjrv : Messages : 1883-1883 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1883?)
23:31:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1883
From: "David "
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:09 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts, 2003 jam1433
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Many years ago I said publicly that what you touch
> in RV, touches you back. It was theory then. Now I'm
> finally practicing (though not as much as I should),
> and wondering more about it. On especially close
> targets, I have felt a sense of internal intimacy
> with them. Maybe it's not just projection.
PJ, that is something that has been on my mind recently as well. I
wonder about some of the targets I have attempted over the past few
years, especially ones involving God, Jesus, Buddha, etc.
Over the past few years I have to admit that I am a better peron than
I was a few years ago. I am much more caring, open-minded,loving,
accepting, and sensitive than before. I have often wondered if my
involvement in RV may have played a part in my change. It is
intriguing to think that the targets we connect with during sessions
can bring about positive changes within us.
David Moore
(working the night shift)
pjrv : Messages : 1904-1941 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1904?)
23:31:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1904
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> "Eva " wrote:
> The larger the search area and the less info you have, the more
> difficult it would be to rv it's location. Most if not all
> successful rv results of location happen when there is a limited
> probable search area and/or a lot of other info known about the
> location and/or a lot of resources available to follow up on any info
> that is obtained.
But RV is used (we are told) to find missing people who are often dead and
not being moved around. Granted, these cases usually imply that the missing
person is believed to be within a certain area as opposed to anywhree in the
world. But then, why could that not be agreed to, at least for starters or a
a variable to be tested.
If the treasure is limited to say one specific county or city vs teh whole
country/ world, does that just mean that less work would be required?
I recall reading all sorts of claims of how viewers "see" the surrounding
areas, move about great distances, describe cities 50 miles to the
northeast........ jeez even go to Mars and Saturn and the Galactic Federation
Hq with the Golden Boys.....
They describe the weather conditions, if its day or night.......how about a
movement exercise to describe the elevation of the sun at the target site at
thetiem of the viewing?
Does RV really need a Groucho Marx type hint? :)
OK! So restrict the area to be "searched". When the hit rate reaches WOW
status, raise the bar. Find the limit.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1905
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Shelia wrote
> If you were using CRV you may start with a regular RV session that
> includes in a later stage a dowsing component. But in instances like
> Joe had in his book of looking for the little girl in the woods (where
> there were few landmarks) one would depend primarily upon dowsing -
> and his own intuitive knowing of whether the child was alive or not.
> I think it probably depends upon the situation, the method one prefers
> to use, and the problem one is attempting to solve.
> One case I worked several years ago started with a session on the last
> known location (an airport) just to determine how the person left that
> locale -- and what shape they were in when they left.
I see no problem with combining techniques as long as that is part of the
demo/test protocol.
Heck....CRV then dowse.... then scry..... then ouija ..... whatever it
takes ....
whatever is in the protocol.
Thate would also be a way to zdero in on the target wouldnt it? Focus on the
person placing the
target at its location. Who are thay? Where do they live? Where did they
come from? Where did they go after
placing the target? Follow the person!
> I've worked with several people on honing skills with objects. In
> preparing feedback I took great care to set the objects aside from all
> other items except the table they were on with a dark cloth underneath
> and a white wall behind them. It's nearly impossible to get some
> viewers to describe the object *without* winking about! With some, I'd
> get a description of half the stuff in the room -- and the object got
> lost in the room with only a few noticeable descriptors that one could
> attribute to the object distinctively. Learning to focus on what is
> actually tasked rather than take a stroll through the park is not easy.
Exactly, and that seems to be where all the rationalzation comes in
so many times. "I described the glass and the telephone and the desk but
missed the target tape dispenser." But whose glass and desk and telephone
did you describe?
Maybe it was a bowl and a radio and a table.
> > How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :)
>
> Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't
> think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet.
LOL. I just wanted to see who was paying attention.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1906
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:24 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> PJ wrote:
> Ah Rich, you are my dark side sometimes....
That's why I only surf at night, after the sun goes down without any mirrors
in the room.....
and why I'm no good at scrying.
> > if its really dowsing, why does
> > everyone refer to finding
> > lost people as an RV activity?
>
> You sometimes tend to define RV, and the field at large, by the
> elements least expert (or most vocal - and why ARE those so often the
> same?!), which only makes it worse. Oh, wait! OPTIMISM, my 2003
> resolution. Mmmmnnnn. OK. The field has great potential! :-)
Yes, that's usually to see who will make distinctions. The rest of the time
its just my imprecision, ignorance, AOL, etc :)
> But the goal in the TV show Joe was in that apparently began
> this was simply to describe the location (not NAME or FIND the
> location) that the outbounder was at.
Well, my goal would be to find the object using as many RVers and sessions
as required, working together or individually or supplying data to a common
analyst or group.... whatever it takes.
> Now if the target had been, "Find this person," then that would be
> dowsing.
> But, "Describe this person's current environment in enough detail
> and/or unique specifics that they can be located" would be RV.
> Whether that goal could be pulled off by any viewer or on any given
> target is another story, but as long as it's focused on describing as
> opposed to locating, it is in the RV camp.
OK, lets locate the object, then describe it, or vice versa. :)
> Dowsing is a 'tool' in some RV methods, but in reality, I've met darn
> few who can dowse worth a damn. Joe points out it is its own field,
> its own skill, and just as complex, worthwhile, yet long term
> discipline-oriented as RV is.
As I mentioned in another post. How;s come teaching dowsing isnt as popular
as RV? It certainly seems more useful.
> Well first off, people may be easier to find than objects, unless the
> object is a large nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be
> nailed down on this but it certainly does appear that some targets
> either have more "information" than others, or we simply perceive
> more of what they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason.
OK, so we place the object in a nuclear sub and only require that its
location be described as being in the sub. :)
I can live with that.
> Oh, but the main point is, you just described two radically different
> things.
> Finding anything is locational.
> Outbounder (beacon) RV is DESCRIPTIVE.
ok
> > How does "describe the location?" as a
> > tasking against a feedback photo
> > differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an
> > object in an unspecified location?
>
> Mostly by the difference in kjjasdyfnqwer. Rephrase please.
Never mind. Its well known that one cannot RV in Polish.
> > If one can nail
> > the target why can one not proceed to
> > describe the surroundings
>
> Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice photo generally include
> describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings?
If the immediate surroundings are not in the photo, how does one know?
If it is a verbal tasking, same thing.
> > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
>
> Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-)
I was wondering if anyone has ever used any form of psi while someone
was ouijaing to determine who is at the other end of the board.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1907
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:10 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> That's why I only surf at night, after
> the sun goes down without any mirrors
> in the room.....
> and why I'm no good at scrying.
Did you ever read 'The Keep'? Not to be confused with the hideous
movie of the same name, which borrowed the characters and outline -
but totally changed the story and the whole point of it and the
ending etc. etc. It was a good book (F Paul Wilson I believe).
> Yes, that's usually to see who
> will make distinctions.
Are you saying you just go around jerkin' chains?
I will get you for that one day. :-)
> Well, my goal would be to find the object
What object? Is the object worth finding? The personal 'vestment' a
viewer has (psychologically) in a target or session makes a huge
amount of difference. If you find a target that is a missing,
endangered child, or that is a LOTTAMONEY that I get if I find it, I
might go looking! But I wouldn't care enough to bother with John Doe
hiding 'something somewhere'.
By the way in 'The Dowsers Workbook', Tom Graves actually hid a
couple of things -- one in CA one in the UK -- for dowsers to find
and even showed a sketch and described what it was.
> using as many RVers and sessions
> as required, working together or
> individually or supplying data to a common
> analyst or group.... whatever it takes.
Figuring out what it takes will itself be a monumental project.
I'm so glad you've volunteered to lead this Rich! And to support you
I'll set up something on the web so people can volunteer for various
roles and anything else you need. You work out all the details and
the doing it of course. When do we start?
(Am I already getting you for that, I wonder... lol....)
> OK, lets locate the object, then describe it, or vice versa.
We don't need to describe it. If we locate it, we'll KNOW what it
looks like. :-) MORAL OF THE STORY: If your dowsing's good enough,
you might not even need RV. An important P.S. though: RV could
vastly narrow down the digging in the wrong place if it could
describe something specific about 'where' it was hidden. :-)
> As I mentioned in another post. How;s come
> teaching dowsing isnt as popular
> as RV? It certainly seems more useful.
I am as much interested in dowsing as RV. It's just that alas, so
few people share the interest, that I don't talk about it much (or
maybe we ALL think that, so all don't talk about it much!).
But then, I don't teach anything.
Teaching dowsing isn't so popular because great dowsers have written
lots of free books on it, there are free or low cost societies in
every country dedicated to it, and any fool can try it on their own.
Well, only the latter applies to RV, but people are easily convinced
otherwise. RV is still considered a sort of SECRET KNOWLEDGE!
But, the SRV manual is online (and audio files and more), the CRV
manual is online, TDS (Calabrese) is putting their methodology
online, the HRVG group has their methods online -- well sort of, I
think you have to join something actually, but at least it's not a
$4500 and air fare secret like RV methods used to be -- and
McMoneagle has a variety of books, at least three of which outline
the Nike "Just Do It." method anybody can begin with. Given all
that, it is hardly SECRET anymore, and I imagine that over time...
eventually.... enough people will get competent on their OWN, without
some official method, that the general public will get less willing
to pay thousands for training.
Then, maybe they will teach dowsing instead, LOL. I don't know.
> OK, so we place the object in a nuclear
> sub and only require that its
> location be described as being in the sub. :)
> I can live with that.
LOL. I was joking about the sub. I just mean that some targets seem
to have more impact on a viewer than others, and/or, are more unique
(and hence usually accurate data is more valuable). If we're
describing a picture frame buried in the desert, you are unlikely to
get a whole helluva lot of value from that. If the location and the
thing hidden are more... interesting and valuable, that's different --
just for the psychology aspect.
> Never mind. Its well known that one cannot RV in Polish.
I can't even RV in English half the time. Never mind.
> > > If one can nail
> > > the target why can one not proceed to
> > > describe the surroundings
> >
> > Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice
> > photo generally include
> > describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings?
>
> If the immediate surroundings are not in the
> photo, how does one know?
> If it is a verbal tasking, same thing.
Be clear, here, what is the point? If you have feedback, you have
feedback (even if the viewer doesn't see it). Are you saying, "Can
the viewer describe what is probably so, but outside feedback?"
Certainly, everybody does that regularly, don't you? If that isn't
the question, what is?
> > > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
> >
> > Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-)
>
> I was wondering if anyone has ever used
> any form of psi while someone
> was ouijaing to determine who is at the
> other end of the board.
To DETERMINE? Ye Gods! My skeptic's heart goes out to you Rich.
You are losing your wariness or something. What the hell would psi
be expected to DETERMINE about the nature of the Ouija process, or
even who/what was 'on the other end'? I've had spontaneous
experiences that were 100000x more powerful than most average psi
sessions -- would you trust those to tell you about the cat-eyed
lizard guys who fly the glowing red-orange orbs? :-) Or the big
blonde super-blue eyed guys who beat the crud out of you if you get
lucid while they've got you?
Would you trust an RV session -- a mostly intangible, often
confusing, often piecemeal experience -- over a fully conscious, wide
awake experience of an ordinary person? Why or why not? What makes
RV such a grand and glorious thing that it can 'determine' WHO an
entity is or WHETHER the entity is legitimate, which would require
determining, as a side-effect, whether the person believing they
experience the entity is having a 'legit' experience vs. some kind of
hallucination (and isn't that legit 'to them' - and what exactly is
the difference?)?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
I didn't think so. :-) I'm getting a little lost too, I admit --
But WHY THE HECK are you so willing to trust, or even consider, RV to
determine 'who' a Ouija entity is, when you are so damned reserved
about everything ELSE in RV, most of which is far less esoteric and
subjective than that!?
OK I've had my fun, I think I'll go to bed now. :-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1909
From: "intuitwolf "
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 intuitwolf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Rich said:
> > using as many RVers and sessions
> > as required, working together or
> > individually or supplying data to a common
> > analyst or group.... whatever it takes.
> PJ responded:
> Figuring out what it takes will itself be a monumental project.
> I'm so glad you've volunteered to lead this Rich! And to support you
> I'll set up something on the web so people can volunteer for various
> roles and anything else you need. You work out all the details and
> the doing it of course. When do we start?
And I add: oh Rich you definitely have just "bought the farm!" It IS
doable though. I'm just hoping you have the patience, time, and
organizational skills you are going to need.
Good luck fella - next time you'll know better than to pick on PJ :-)
Shelia
Reply | Forward
#1914
From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:01 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
PJ, Rich, and E.,
> Rich Wrote:
> if its really dowsing, why does
> everyone refer to finding
> lost people as an RV activity?"
> PJ Wrote:
> Finding a lost person could be done
> in a variety of ways including search
> engine browsing. Everything is in the details.
Yep. While RV is usually acknowledged as being difficult to use successfully
in finding missing persons/objects, it CAN and HAS been done. But the
specific method you use would really be beside the point. You would be
demonstrating proof-in-principle of psi. But without also testing other
methods like scrying, dowsing, tarot cards, etc., that's about the only thing
you would be demonstrating (other than potential for the practical
application of psi). Hell, technically-speaking, if the other methods are
tested and are successful under the doubleblind RV protocols, Joe M. would be
willing to call it RV anyway.lol!
> Rich Wrote:
> Why is finding a person at LA airport an
> example of RV?
> PJ Wrote:
> "You misinterpret, I think -- DESCRIBING a person's
> surroundings so well that, as she happened to be at
> LAX, it was obvious that the location was probably
> LAX (and bear in mind we didn't have the universe to
> choose from here, the show and outbounder were IN Los
> Angeles) is RV, it's just good RV."
I'm not sure I understand this conversation. Isn't it pretty obvious that in
the above example, someone is taking the description of a location provided
by an RVer and using THAT to find the missing person? It just a practical
application of RV-derived information.
> PJ Wrote:
> "Now if the target had been, "Find this person,"
> then that would be dowsing."
I don't know if the distinction is that clear-cut. Dowsing can be used to
give desrciptives, just like RV, through a series of binary questions: "Is
the person in a building? Is the person wearing a blue shirt? Is the person
in a suburban environment?", etc. By the same token, RV can occassionally
give very detailed information abour a specific physical location - the name
of the city or street, etc. So can scrying. Dowsing, the way it's usually
used, gives a specific point on a map or in the physical environment, but it
all depends on the questions you ask yourself. I don't think there is really
that much of a difference between the two. Dowsing is really just a more
forced-choice method of arriving at information regarding a target than RV is.
> PJ Wrote:
> "Well first off, people may be easier to find
> than objects, unless the object is a large
> nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be
> nailed down on this but it certainly does appear
> that some targets either have more "information"
> than others, or we simply perceive more of what
> they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason."
I think it has to do with the degree of entropy involved with the site, the
degree of activity, I believe that in most cases, lifeforms are easier
becuase they give off a greater energy signature that inanimate objects, and
also what the individual viewers' personal interests are.
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1916
From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
Rich,
> You Wrote:
> "I was wondering if anyone has ever used
> any form of psi while someone was ouijaing
> to determine who is at the other end of the board."
Well, I would assume the people actually using thew board would be using psi,
and one of their most frequent questions is "Who are we talking to?". But
the answers they get regarding this question tends to be as nonsensical as
most of the other information that seems to come through ouija boards.
But depending on what the real answer to the question is, the RV information
could theoretically come from any number of places and then be loaded with
different answers. If the tasker believes it's demons, the RVer may get
that. If the people using the board believe they are communicating with
ghosts, the RVer may get that. If the RVer is going to read a book about
Ouija boards at some point in the future, the information could arise from
that. If the true answer is that the information is coming from the
subconsciouses of the people using the board, what kind of RV data could tell
you that? If the communication really DOES involve something demonic, would
the real answers be camoflaged by these demonic entities - obscuring the true
source and thereby hiding the fact of their existence along with their
motives? I don't know if any of it works this way, just speculating. But I
see no reason why it couldn't.
And after all of the RVing on this matter, how do you get feedback - ask the
ouija board? lol! This would be akin to RVing aliens and then attempting to
draw conclusions based on the RV data, and I think it would be just as
generally pointless. I've wondered along these lines myself, like what if I
RVed somone having an OBE? I haven't done it yet but I plan to someday. I
think it, too, will be generally pointless in every aspect but one, and
that's in the experiental aspect. In that aspect, I think these kinds of
targets hold some value for the individual RVer.
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1918
From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
Hi PJ and Rich,
> PJ Wrote:
> "We don't need to describe it. If we locate it,
> we'll KNOW what it looks like. :-) MORAL OF THE
> STORY: If your dowsing's good enough, you might
> not even need RV. An important P.S. though: RV
> could vastly narrow down the digging in the wrong
> place if it could describe something specific about
> 'where' it was hidden. :-)"
By the same token, if your RV is good enough, you don't need to dowse! lol!
RV could also tell you some important, related things that dowsing probably
wouldn't unless you asked your pendulum the question directly (and had a
really good topo map, lol!). Things that may effect being able to physically
reach the missing target, like what if it's at the bottom of a city lagoon,
or perched at the edge of an active volcano, or sitting on top of one of the
world's tallest mountains, or buried under 50 feet of frozen,
avalanche-material, or hidden in the back of a cave, just behind a
hibernating thousand-pound Grizzly Bear? LOL!
What if the missing object is a rare piece of art that has already been
accidentally destroyed and is now rendered valueless? Would you still want
to search for it? Dowsing won't indicate those kinds of details, but RV can.
Or maybe it's booby-trapped so that when you start digging, you and the
target are both destroyed - ala "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" or
something. What if there's an insane gentleman living within twenty yards of
where the object is buried and he loves to practice with his deer rifle on
trespassers (or anyone he sees in general)? RV would hopefully give you a
warning about that. Dowsing won't.
You know, this whole damn thing is starting to sound way too dangerous to me.
I don't think I want any part of it. Thanks alot Rich, for suggesting such
a reckless, hair-brained, dangerous scheme! lol!
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1924
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Don wrote
> I would assume the people actually using
> the board would be using psi,
> and one of their most frequent questions
> is "Who are we talking to?". But
> the answers they get regarding this question
> tends to be as nonsensical as
> most of the other information that seems
> to come through ouija boards.
That is very curious..... both the quantity of non-sensical info and the
responses to the question.
> But depending on what the real answer to the
> question is, the RV information
> could theoretically come from any number of
> places and then be loaded with
> different answers. If the tasker believes
> it's demons, the RVer may get
> that. If the people using the board believe
> they are communicating with
> ghosts, the RVer may get that. If the RVer is
> going to read a book about
> Ouija boards at some point in the future, the
> information could arise from
> that. If the true answer is that the information
> is coming from the
> subconsciouses of the people using the board,
> what kind of RV data could tell
> you that?
Exactly my feelings on the taskings involving ETs and the Golden Boys, etc. The
classic case being
Courtney Brown's and Ed Dames' UFO/ET stuff.... especially Berown's prediction
that Clinton would
announce the existence of ETs and a woman would play a significant part...... a
perfect description
of the movie CONTACT.
> And after all of the RVing on this matter,
> how do you get feedback - ask the
> ouija board? lol! This would be akin to RVing
> aliens and then attempting to
> draw conclusions based on the RV data, and
> I think it would be just as
> generally pointless. I've wondered along these
> lines myself, like what if I
> RVed somone having an OBE? I haven't done it
> yet but I plan to someday. I
> think it, too, will be generally pointless in
> every aspect but one, and
> that's in the experiental aspect. In that
> aspect, I think these kinds of
> targets hold some value for the individual RVer.
Yeah its a pretty far out idea but not too close to the edge. I would wager
that
if it was done
once with one answer then it would be done by someone else who would get a
different answer
as is typical in psi derived data --- as in TWA 800 RV data.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1926
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Don wrote
> You know, this whole damn thing is starting to sound way too dangerous to me.
> I don't think I want any part of it. Thanks alot Rich, for suggesting such
> a reckless, hair-brained, dangerous scheme! lol!
Hey, c'mon now. We're not making a movie out of this.
But .... on second thought.....
Indiana Jones and the RV of Doom.
Reminds me of The Father Of Remote Viewing's trip to Alaska
and his Mother OF All UFO Encounters.
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1941
From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:39 am
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
Hi Rich,
> You Wrote:
> "Exactly my feelings on the taskings involving
> ETs and the Golden Boys, etc. The
> classic case being
> Courtney Brown's and Ed Dames' UFO/ET stuff....
> especially Brown's prediction that Clinton would
> announce the existence of ETs and a woman
> would play a significant part...... a
> perfect description of the movie CONTACT."
That's the thing with just about all esoteric targets, even if the RVer is
working on a specific UFO sighting or abduction case, they might get enough
site-specific information to let you know they were on-target. But the real
information, the stuff people really want to know about, is never verifiable.
After I did some UFO and alien targets, I became a little suspicious about the
way my information tallied with a lot of what's out there in the UFO
literature. Did I really get true information? Or did I just RV what many
people believe about the phenomenon, or possibly what I going to be reading
about it in, what was from that perpective, the future? Or maybe a lot of what
researchers in the UFO field believe is actually correct and that's why their
beliefs so closely resembled my RV data? I'll probably never know for sure.
Warm Regards,
Don
pjrv : Messages : 1881-1981 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1881?)
23:32:44
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1881
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:04 pm
Subject: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Hi you guys. I've been pretty busy and feel a bit tuned out lately,
but have enjoyed what I've seen go by here.
Over on another list it was suggested maybe someone bury something
somewhere in the US and the viewer to find it won something. the
funny part was this was in the context of 'proving' RV. It ain't RV,
it's dowsing, but the funny part is, that ain't enough motivation. I
suggest they bury several uniquely formed bars' worth of solid gold --
THEN it might be something worth finding!
Rereading some stargate archives briefly recently to find something,
I came across a post that made me laugh harder than the first time I
saw it. I realized that it nicely summed up the only excuse anybody
in RV ever really needs -- totally unprovable, yet unarguable. Next
time someone says, "Why don't you / your school / your company
demonstrate RV in some way?" the response can be, "I'm sorry, but I
cannot take time out from finding lost children to respond to such
trivia [and aren't YOU quite the cad to be asking!]."
On another list someone suggested psychically viewing an 'alternate
self'. (Actually they said RV, but it couldn't get feedback
even 'eventually', and that's part of any decent 'RV' protocol.) I
mused on this and then started wondering if, in a rather buddhistic
way, EVERYONE isn't technically an alternate self. Maybe what we are
connected to is about attention, as much as soul-genetics.
Maybe if we RV a person we become 'linked' with them just a little --
I have always felt that way about RVing places, so why not people,
even moreso? I sometimes spontaneously 'sit in on' the identity of
someone else, and I always rather assumed that these were
probably 'aspects of self' or something, me and Eva were PEMing about
this recently and it got stuck in my head for awhile.
What if, like some theories on synchronicity, the 'connections' are
made by how we internally organize things, and not by any quality in
the thing itself? Many years ago I said publicly that what you touch
in RV, touches you back. It was theory then. Now I'm finally
practicing (though not as much as I should), and wondering more about
it. On especially close targets, I have felt a sense of internal
intimacy with them. Maybe it's not just projection.
I've started my third RV lab book now. They are getting better,
which is to say, more sessions and less mess, lol. I figure by the
4th one they will finally actually look like something halfway
organized. They are getting more fused, though; I have a variety
of 'types' of psi (some exercises, some methods) and dowsing and
meditations and journaling, which I prefer to put in together as I
consider this all a joined, "Evolving Process of Me" and not just a
hobby. I have some specific 'methods' sessions that I have in page
protectors in a ring binder, but I like having much of my life in the
lab book, a bit like a magical diary.
I've been thinking about RV vs. psi lately. An odd thing, you know,
I don't mind tuning into a person "unofficially" and can often get
quite a psi sense of them. Yet, I haven't had people at the focus of
my RV target pool until recently, and only sporadically. I find most
the session is fighting the 'aol' of it being a 'person' - which is
sort of a decision one has to make prior to deciding to go ahead for
person-specific information; half the session at least is usually my
attempt to make a person into a bridge, LOL, because I don't want to
ASSUME it is a person. :-)
I might make myself a pool that is nothing but people or people-
situations/events, which would carry the frontloading of it being a
person(s), but would have a wide variety of options both physical and
conceptual. I should mix animals in there too I guess...
Anyway what I was going to say initially was, in RV, I am lucky to
get there IS a person let alone detail, but "unofficially" on my own
time, without official RV, in my general 'healing' or 'meditation'
modality, it's a different story. I've never put any serious blocks
on this because I figure it's likely archetypal, e.g., as likely to
be simply my projection as anything legitimately about them, though
it often turns out to be so, and my reason for doing so (in case
anybody wants to kvetch about morals) is always archetypal -- e.g.,
if I sense a "conflict geometry" between myself and that person, I
will usually do a meditation to try and resolve that.
But I am not 'expecting' it to be factual, provable, etc., so I
really don't care. I wonder if this is just an issue of putting
expectations or parameters on the experience; if my RV would flow as
easily if it had the no-expectations clause attached that ordinary
tuning in does. To me, RV has expectations built in; my personal
meditations don't.
When my frantic work schedule slows down in mid-late Feb or so, one
thing I'm planning to do is set up a good dowsing workout. I have
tons of targets that are not only really good RV targets, but they've
got date and/or location info (sometimes even time of day) as well.
When I get it planned out, I will post my workout and targets so
anybody else interested in dowsing can play too.
Well it's new year's eve. I can't believe another year has passed.
My dad once told me that adults work for the weekend and that's why
time goes so fast. Someone else told me sense of time in retrospect
is mostly filled with novelty, so the less novelty in one's thinking
or life, the more time seemed unnoticed as a solid thing when looking
back. When I was in 5th grade I mused one day -- after crying myself
into an altered state over a grade on my report card, LOL! -- that
time really WAS going faster, and I had this image of some giant god
in the sky just spinning the wheel faster or something. Anyway,
there it goes, there it went, it's over and done now, and in an hour
my time it will be the year 2003.
My personal goals for this year are all about lifestyle. I want to
have a vastly healthier lifestyle with better food, more water, more
exercise. I want to spend more time with my little girl. I want to
get a much more regular daily schedule of some personal time, to
include more meditations, and more RV and other forms of psi and
energy work. And I want to once and for all resolve a lot of stuff
that has been hanging over my head for many years -- some are
financial obligations, some are work or volunteer committments, some
are stuff around the house (my kitchen has been half painted for 1.5
years, I mean come ON, lol!).
Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". I want to work on
deliberately keeping the faith; holding onto a positive expectation
that no matter what the trivia of daily matters, all is well in the
world, all is well in me, things are as they should be, and the best
can manifest any moment.
Hope you have some grand plans too.
Best regards,
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1882
From: "Eva "
Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> I find most
> the session is fighting the 'aol' of it
> being a 'person' - which is
> sort of a decision one has to make prior
> to deciding to go ahead for
> person-specific information; half the
> session at least is usually my
> attempt to make a person into a bridge,
> LOL, because I don't want to
> ASSUME it is a person. :-)
Yeah, I have the same trouble with water. I am slowly getting over
it. But for the longest time, I had to keep wondering if was really
water or some symbolic thing, or me jumping to conclusions. I don't
know why water did that to me. But in the end it comes down to
letting go of worrying about being wrong. So you say 'person' and
are wrong? Then you can think about how the booboo may have
occured. Maybe you will be wrong the next 5 times too. But you will
get it eventually. I think sometimes (if not always), the only way
to learn is to make the mistake and see what the mistake feels like
and then get it right and see what getting it right feels like. Only
that way can you see the difference. The hard part is really just
getting that laid back attitude.
> I might make myself a pool that is
> nothing but people or people-
> situations/events, which would carry the
> frontloading of it being a
> person(s), but would have a wide variety
> of options both physical and
> conceptual. I should mix animals in there too I guess...
I did that a while just for fun. I just took some 3 by 5 cards and
wrote names of famous interesting people, a deceased relative or two
(don't ask me why it seems less like snooping if they are dead!), and
my dog. I shuffled the cards and stuck em in a drawer.
Occasionally, I would run a session and then afterwards I would draw
a card. The funniest one was when I got my dog. I totally didn't
know it was him, but I described a hairy faced guy with a big nose.
He was outside by grass and a fence, etc. He was doing a lot of
watching and looking around. It was a really good session and I
laughed so hard when I drew the card and it was my pooch who was out
in the yard, hehe.
> Someone else told me sense of time in retrospect
> is mostly filled with novelty, so the less
> novelty in one's thinking
> or life, the more time seemed unnoticed as
> a solid thing when looking back.
That's a wonderful concept that I had not thought of. But yes, it
would explain a lot including why time seems to move so slowly for
children.
> My personal goals for this year are all about lifestyle. [...]
> And I want to once and for all resolve a lot of stuff [...]
> Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". [...]
Well JEEEEEZZZZZ!!! If you get all THAT done in a year, you may be
ready to ascend to heaven in the next, LOL! A lot of that stuff is
more attainable in step by step processes and some of that stuff
basically requires a step by step process. I have been working on a
lot of that stuff myself and sometimes it just does not go as fast as
one might hope or want. I guess part of the whole idea is to learn
to appreciate the process because the process never really ends
anyway.
-E
Reply | Forward
#1884
From: "Glyn"
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:30 am
Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ and all,
> (my kitchen has been half painted for 1.5 years, I mean come ON, lol!).
Mmmmm, parts of my kitchen need painting too, and I intend(ed) to finish
it over these holidays..but what's the betting I don't get round to it?
:-). Maybe half-painted kitchens are something that all RVers have... :-).
After much deliberation I have decided that my personal goals for 2003 are:
To lose 2 stone of flab so I can get into my favourite long black dress in
time for a relative's birthday party in March.
To do at least two RV sessions every week and to stop worrying about what
RV method I should or should not be using or whether this or that additional
training might help me, but consolidate what I have learned over the last
four years and now concentrate on working towards improving my viewing
against my own standards.
To try and appreciate all that I am and have achieved to date, rather than
hanker after what might have been and what may never be, and to cherish my
friends and loved ones and show them I care, so that one day I won't have to
say "if only"..
And before I get too maudlin....I have the same goal as you
PJ...."Optimism" is the word! :-)).
Happy New Year everyone!
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#1889
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Over on another list it was suggested maybe someone bury something
> somewhere in the US and the viewer to find it won something. the
> funny part was this was in the context of 'proving' RV. It ain't RV,
> it's dowsing, but the funny part is, that ain't enough motivation. I
> suggest they bury several uniquely formed bars' worth of solid gold --
> THEN it might be something worth finding!
_I Raised hand glyph? I am not finished yet and I have more lead
balloons lined up for 2003. :)
But seriously.... if its really dowsing, why does everyone refer to finding
lost people as an RV activity? Why is finding a person at LA airport an
example of RV?
What are the detail differences between finding an item that someone has
placed or mis-placed and finding a lost person or in doing an outbounder
tasking?
How does "describe the location?" as a tasking against a feedback photo
differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an
object in an unspecified location?
How often does one get a practice target that is some object/etc where the
feedback does not include the actual location of the object? If one can nail
the target why can one not proceed to describe the surroundings........ the
famous "winking about" process...... or the
great movement above the target process?
So to be technically correct, does the "test" have to include an RV part to
describe the object being sought via RV, and then find it via dowsing?
Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
....an OBE team to prove OBE?
.... a coin flipping team as a control?
....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the Mississippi or west?, etc
How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :)
> Rereading some stargate archives briefly recently to find something,
> I came across a post that made me laugh harder than the first time I
> saw it. I realized that it nicely summed up the only excuse anybody
> in RV ever really needs -- totally unprovable, yet unarguable. Next
> time someone says, "Why don't you / your school / your company
> demonstrate RV in some way?" the response can be, "I'm sorry, but I
> cannot take time out from finding lost children to respond to such
> trivia [and aren't YOU quite the cad to be asking!]."
As I said.......
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1893
From: "Viv"
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:21 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 eclecticviv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Richard:
My understanding is that dowsing, is more along the lines
of an ARV exercise. The difference is in using a larger
pool, then the ususal off/on, right/left, or more frequently
used binery style, target pool.
Another way to look at dowsing is, the dowser uses a tool
as a directional cue, for a location within a compass
direction.
An RV viewer, is more inclined to collect sensory
information, regarding a location, which may or may not
include a compass direction.
Viv*
Reply | Forward
#1895
From: "Glyn"
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 6:40 am
Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Rich, PJ and all,
> Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
I'm going off at a tangent here, but I'm interested in all activities
where 'psi' is or may be involved, and the Ouija is a very common activity,
which has stood the test of time.
I know that there is an extremely high 'giggle-factor' associated with the
Ouija, but also it is thought of as being 'scary', and many a school-kid
has had the 'poop' frightened out of themselves after being invited (usually
by a group of solemn-faced older kids...bin there, dun that :-), into doing
it for the first time, and had ended up being the unfortunate recipient of
death threats from dubious 'entities' . Yes, scary for some adults, let
alone children, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it for those more easily
influenced/impressionable/manipulated.
However, I think it is now fairly generally believed, in serious psi
research circles anyway, that 'doing the Ouija' is yet another method of
getting in touch with the subconscious, and dependant on the people involved
and the circumstances, you can get good stuff or absolute drivel. The
intriguing thing with the Ouija situation of course, is that more than one
sub may have impact; although the 'dominant' one(s) may be responsible for
physically pushing the glass about (unknown to the conscious minds of the
pushers of course); a bit like what happens during dowsing, where
subconscious impressions are transferred into motion through the physical
body to indicate a direction, or in this case letters, numbers or 'yes/no'.
When in a group using a Ouija board (or glass and bits of paper as if
often the case), things often start off being interesting/promising, but
then often degenerate into absolute garbage, ending up with the almost
obligatory threats by some of the more dubious characters/entities/spirits
'contacted'. When I used to do it years ago, I'd wonder just who the heck
in our little group was the main driver for the load of moronic drivel we
used to get.....but seeing as the little group often consisted of my mother,
my sister and me, then I didn't really want to know. LOL! We treated it as
fun, and kept our feet firmly on the ground (with the possible exception of
our Mum, who was of the 'occult' generation). Eventually we used to tell the
more sinister 'characters' to go sling their hook and try and get some sense
out of the 'messages'. Unfortunately we never had much success and when my
Mum died in 1988 we lost interest and stopped doing it.
Anyway, that apart, I have read that some people have obtained interesting
information, including that which is validatable; which is the only test of
course. The 'Ouija effect' is intriguing though, and if ever there is a
place for RI to occur (on a psychological level) I would have thought it was
a prime candidate. It does often appear to be one dominant subconscious that
is the main source of what 'comes through', but sometimes a combination too.
If a 'combined' effort could be proved to be occurring, then are each of the
participants 'in contact' at a subconscious level simply by the act of
putting their fingers on a glass with a specific intent and within a
'ritualised' atmosphere? Could a situation similar to hypnosis occur on a
subconscious level? If so, then perhaps the opportunity for RI may be high
if there are others present who had this sort of thing on their agenda.
Could this sort of thing happen when a group of people all touch one
object (in an everyday situation?). Actually the more I think of it then the
more intriguing this thing becomes. It would be interesting to see what a
group of psi-active people would get.
Incidentally, seeing as you could put a load of numbers instead of letters
on the table for an Ouija session, have any of you hopeful lottery winners
(and who isn't? :-), thought of getting together to try that? Surely people
trained to retrieve 'psi' info via the sub (RVers) could possibly have a
head start here.
Just pursuing thoughts really. I think Ouija has an unfortunate image, but
I wouldn't be surprised if research was going on into this interesting
effect.
Anyone on this group still do it?
Regards,
Glyn
BTW...Apologies to anyone who does believe that spirits/entities can be
the source of information retrieved via the Ouija process. I don't, but we
are all entitled to our opinions about this..because we just don't know for
sure do we?
Reply | Forward
#1896
From: "intuitwolf "
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 intuitwolf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Rich wrote
> But seriously.... if its really dowsing,
> why does everyone refer to finding
> lost people as an RV activity?
If you were using CRV you may start with a regular RV session that
includes in a later stage a dowsing component. But in instances like
Joe had in his book of looking for the little girl in the woods (where
there were few landmarks) one would depend primarily upon dowsing -
and his own intuitive knowing of whether the child was alive or not.
I think it probably depends upon the situation, the method one prefers
to use, and the problem one is attempting to solve.
One case I worked several years ago started with a session on the last
known location (an airport) just to determine how the person left that
locale -- and what shape they were in when they left.
In the second session we looked at where the person was currently and
when it was determined that they were most likely in a non-descript
desert area we moved to dowsing. Over the next few days sessions were
done to track the movement of this person and those sessions included
a dowsing component.
Now normally if I were tasked knowing that I needed to look into the
condition of a person I can get more detail using my own method - but
I prefer to be blind and to start off using CRV - if I determine I'm
looking at a person and that this is the critical information needed I
can switch. But when it comes to location I'd prefer going with CRV
first and using dowsing only secondarily if I found there were no
prominent and clear landmarks. But that's because I tend to be an
unreliable dowser (I haven't practiced enough).
> What are the detail differences between
> finding an item that someone has
> placed or mis-placed and finding a lost
> person or in doing an outbounder
> tasking?
an item that has been placed or misplaced can sometimes be found by
using the person who placed or misplaced the item as the 'outbounder'
-- i.e., tuning into the moment the item was placed.
An outbounder is describing the location where the outbounder is
situated for your viewing enjoyment. They are intentionally focusing
upon the details.
Finding a lost person does not imply a cooperative focus as in an
outbounder - but it could. In Joe's book he talked about the general
who had been kidnapped and how when he saw the results of their remote
viewing sessions during the phases of his captivity -- how they could
pick up his thoughts and things he noted in his environment - like an
outbounder - he suggested that personnel be taught to focus on their
surroundings and the persons/items around them during any captivity so
they could assist in their own rescue operation. I thought this was an
excellent idea.
> How does "describe the location?" as a
> tasking against a feedback photo
> differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an
> object in an unspecified location?
It doesn't, unless you are describing your feedback photo rather than
the describing the site represented by the feedback photo.
> How often does one get a practice
> target that is some object/etc where the
> feedback does not include the actual
> location of the object?
> If one can nail
> the target why can one not proceed to describe
> the surroundings........ the
> famous "winking about" process...... or the
> great movement above the target process?
I've worked with several people on honing skills with objects. In
preparing feedback I took great care to set the objects aside from all
other items except the table they were on with a dark cloth underneath
and a white wall behind them. It's nearly impossible to get some
viewers to describe the object *without* winking about! With some, I'd
get a description of half the stuff in the room -- and the object got
lost in the room with only a few noticeable descriptors that one could
attribute to the object distinctively. Learning to focus on what is
actually tasked rather than take a stroll through the park is not easy.
> How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :)
Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't
think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet.
Shelia
Reply | Forward
#1932
From: Juha Koskelainen
Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 11:43 am
Subject: Current location of Electra (was: Re: Thoughts; 2003) velhox
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
>[Amelia Earhart]
>Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't
>think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet.
Location data from the project was published a long time ago:
http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/specialsessionthumbnail.pl?dir=t2d5-i1d9&targeti
d=t2d5-i1d9&sd=specialsessions
- Lucid
Reply | Forward
#1901
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Ah Rich, you are my dark side sometimes....
> I am not finished yet and I have more lead
> balloons lined up for 2003. :)
Yay. :-) I'll be swamped till mid-late Feb but then I'm ready!
> if its really dowsing, why does
> everyone refer to finding
> lost people as an RV activity?
Hey! 'Everyone' is a big word. *I* don't. I'm someone. (Wait.
That came out wrong. Like, "I'm SOMEone! They LIKE me!" LOL!)
You sometimes tend to define RV, and the field at large, by the
elements least expert (or most vocal - and why ARE those so often the
same?!), which only makes it worse. Oh, wait! OPTIMISM, my 2003
resolution. Mmmmnnnn. OK. The field has great potential! :-)
Finding a lost person could be done in a variety of ways including
search engine browsing. Everything is in the details.
If you are in Los Angeles and you're describing an outbounder who
could be anywhere, you MIGHT get lucky, if they are by
something 'specific' enough -- you might be able to say, they are at
a major airport, they are at the beach, some specific places in the
region. But the goal in the TV show Joe was in that apparently began
this was simply to describe the location (not NAME or FIND the
location) that the outbounder was at.
> Why is finding a person at LA airport an
> example of RV?
You misinterpret, I think -- DESCRIBING a person's surroundings so
well that, as she happened to be at LAX, it was obvious that the
location was probably LAX (and bear in mind we didn't have the
universe to choose from here, the show and outbounder were IN Los
Angeles) is RV, it's just good RV.
Now if the target had been, "Find this person," then that would be
dowsing.
But, "Describe this person's current environment in enough detail
and/or unique specifics that they can be located" would be RV.
Whether that goal could be pulled off by any viewer or on any given
target is another story, but as long as it's focused on describing as
opposed to locating, it is in the RV camp.
Now if you do RV and make contact HARD enough in the right way,
locating sometimes comes with the territory of data.
And if you do dowsing and make contact HARD enough in the right way,
describing sometimes comes with the territory of data.
Dowsing is a 'tool' in some RV methods, but in reality, I've met darn
few who can dowse worth a damn. Joe points out it is its own field,
its own skill, and just as complex, worthwhile, yet long term
discipline-oriented as RV is.
> What are the detail differences between
> finding an item that someone has
> placed or mis-placed and finding a lost
> person or in doing an outbounder
> tasking?
Well first off, people may be easier to find than objects, unless the
object is a large nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be
nailed down on this but it certainly does appear that some targets
either have more "information" than others, or we simply perceive
more of what they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason.
Years ago I suggested that a famous building would be easier to view
than an old woodshed in an ignored backyard in Kansas, because more
people had participated in the building so it had more energy.
Spottiswoode tells me I didn't come up with that... apparently
Stephan Schwartz labeled this "numinence" or some such thing, no clue
how to spell that, but it had the same meaning. This isn't proven in
any way it's just theory.
Anyway, so, it's possible that finding a unique pocketwatch might be
easier than a mass-produced plastic figurine; that finding a chest of
gold might be easier than finding a vase of dead flowers; there is
really no telling, but objects may be different from one another --
and that's before we get into the issue that people may also be
different from one another, and different from objects -- not at a
core level, I assume we're all interconnected energy, but I mean at
whatever level affects our viewing results.
Oh, but the main point is, you just described two radically different
things.
Finding anything is locational.
Outbounder (beacon) RV is DESCRIPTIVE.
Now if you happen to know the region, and/or get really good contact,
you might actually know they are at a given shopping mall with
something fairly unique about it, for example. But otherwise, you
are simply describing.
> How does "describe the location?" as a
> tasking against a feedback photo
> differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an
> object in an unspecified location?
Mostly by the difference in kjjasdyfnqwer. Rephrase please.
> How often does one get a practice target
> that is some object/etc where the
> feedback does not include the actual
> location of the object?
Well much of the time, actually. Though my target pool has lots of
locational and date info in it, plenty of stuff isn't in there,
particularly for photos of things like animals.
> If one can nail
> the target why can one not proceed to
> describe the surroundings
Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice photo generally include
describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings?
> So to be technically correct, does the
> "test" have to include an RV part to
> describe the object being sought via RV,
> and then find it via dowsing?
If you want RV, vs. dowsing, yeah, include information ABOUT the
target as required, not just the eventual location of it.
> Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1891
From: "Viv"
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:36 am
Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 eclecticviv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Kids:
For 2003, I resolve not to lock the door behind me, if I'm
fleeing a burning building, so the firemen won't have to
use their axes, to get through the door. (I read this
actually happened to a person).
I also resolve not to, do in my husband, because he is
procrastinating, fixing the window he broke, while
painting the livingroom.
I resolve to better organize my, RV/ARV sessions, by
dates, within their individual folders, and file the flolders
in the filing cabinate.
I resolve not to make any more resolutions, I later break,
because I made to many of them to keep track of.
Viv*
Reply | Forward
#1892
From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:32 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
Rich,
> You wrote:
> "But seriously.... if its really dowsing,
> why does everyone refer to finding lost
> people as an RV activity? Why is finding
> a person at LA airport an example of RV?"
It can be done either way. Dowsing, as an alternate but associated skill,
can be very helpful. It's not ALWAYS needed, however. I've done several
successful remote viewings of missing persons and didn't use dowsing. While
the description of the location in each case was eventually important, what
really made finding the missing person possible was something else - In each
case I was able to see the location from high above. It's like looking down
at a map of the United States and having my attention drawn to a particular
area (a state, region, or a certain part of a state). Then I would see that
area at a closer range and be able to reduce the area further, etc. Then
when this information was coupled with the descriptions I had of the targets'
location along with words and phrases, we were able to use all of it to find
the person. Dowsing has only helped me to locate someone one time, and, in
that case, by the time my information got to the right people, the missing
person was already dead.
Dowsing versus RV is only a difference in method, or a combination of the
two. For me, dowsing only seems to work well when I've Rved (or scryed) the
same target just prior to the dowsing effort. If I wait too long to try the
dowsing, it doesn't seem to work very well. And dowsing alone, by itself,
has never worked for me. I'm going to start working on this soon. My
dowsing is too innaccurate most of the time to be useful and I want to change
that.
> You wrote:
> "How often does one get a practice target
> that is some object/etc where the feedback
> does not include the actual location of the
> object? If one can nail the target why can
> one not proceed to describe the surroundings........
> the famous "winking about" process...... or
> the great movement above the target process?"
You can, and I think this is the best way (maybe the only way) for RV to be
used in finding missing people/objects, without also relying on dowsing.
Perhaps ARV, as you described, could be used in a process-of-elimination,
though. But often, the description of the targets' immediate surroundings
does little good. Too many locations, possibly a continent apart, can be
described exactly the same.
> You wrote:
> "How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's
> airplane crash site? :)"
How do we know they actually did?
> You wrote:
> "What are the detail differences between finding
> an item that someone has placed or mis-placed and
> finding a lost person or in doing an outbounder tasking?"
The major difference is that people move around - a lot. Another major
difference is that with items, someone usually has at least some idea of
where the object could possibly be, so it's often pretty easy to tell if the
RVer is at least in the ballpark when they begin descibing the immediate
surroundings of an object.
Another difference for me, is that people tend to have more of an energy
signature than inanimate objects, so they seem easier to perceive. I think
the most efficent way to find a missing person who is moving about is to
target a location they will be at in the near future for a reasonable length
of time. If you can locate this place very specifically then you can arrange
to be there physically at that time to find the person.
In finding a buried object as PJ described, I think the dowsing, even if it
isn't used in finding the general location, would probably be neccessary
on-site to figure out where to start digging. I don't see how RV alone
could get that specific without particular landmarks very close (within
several feet) to the object.
> You wrote:
> "Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
> ....an OBE team to prove OBE?
> .... a coin flipping team as a control?
> ....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the
> Mississippi or west?, etc"
I don't know if you're being facetious here or not, but they all sound like
damn good ideas to me!
Best regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1900
From: "Eva "
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Rich wrote
> "But seriously.... if its really dowsing,
> why does everyone refer to finding lost
> people as an RV activity? Why is finding
> a person at LA airport an example of RV?"
Well I think the main prob is that one lake and trees looks the same
as 10,000 other lakes and trees. Same goes with houses, caves,
mountains, deserts, etc. So if you have the whole world to look for
something, you are in deep rv doodoo if you have not clues. Plus you
wouldn't be able to go and inspect all 10,000 potential spots to
search for other smaller aspects that might show up in a session.
However, if you know something is probably in your house, then rv
might be quite helpful in narrowing down what part of the house to
look in. But that's cuz the search area is limited and there is
minimal repetition of items in that space. For instance, I only have
one weird looking lamp, one computer, one big closet, one kitchen,
one living room, etc. SO if someone rved an item as being in a
living room, that info would actually be helpful, instead of totally
useless like if my search are covered 10 million other living rooms.
The larger the search area and the less info you have, the more
difficult it would be to rv it's location. Most if not all
successful rv results of location happen when there is a limited
probable search area and/or a lot of other info known about the
location and/or a lot of resources available to follow up on any info
that is obtained.
-E
Reply | Forward
#1899
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 4:20 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 sharwebb_30512
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Glyn,
As a long-time player (but not any more) with the Ouija board, I'd like to add a
few thoughts to yours.
First, people are unsure and say things like, "I think I'm moving it." My
answer is, "Of course, you're moving it. This isn't an exercise in
psychokinesis." :-)
As for whether hypnosis is responsible, I don't think so. I think the Ouija is
just a focus, like tarot, or RV techniques, or scrying, or whatever. I think it
results in a slightly dissociated state which enhances psi. I am quite sure
that it is a form of channeling, as after a time, whole sentences and paragraphs
start coming through at a much faster rate than the sluggish planchette would
indicate.
As far as the results, I have had some amazing ones, that could not be explained
by "logical" means.
I'm not sure what happens when more than one person touches the board. Back
when I was doing this, when another person touched the board it felt like lead
weights on the backs of my hands, pinning me down. This got to be very
fatigueing after awhile, and I preferred to use the board without others
touching it.
Sharon
sharwebb...net
www.fractalus.com/sharon
Reply | Forward
#1908
From: "Glyn"
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:42 am
Subject: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Sharon,
>
> I'm not sure what happens when more than one
> person touches the board. Back when I was doing
> this, when another person touched the board it
> felt like lead weights on the backs of my hands,
> pinning me down. This got to be very fatigueing
> after awhile, and I preferred to use the board
> without others touching it.
That's interesting, I've heard of people being able to do this on their
own, but never seen it done. I've tried it, (and also 'automatic writing'
which my mother claimed to have done), but with no success. I just can't
dissociate myself from my hand and let it 'do it's own thing' :-), and not
being able to do that is a non-starter of course.
I have tried dowsing, and although I could get a pendulum to swing I
didn't get much success in terms of outcome really. I did once lose
something small on my carpet and I walked round the room holding my hands
out 'feeling' for it. I sort of felt a slight resistance and warmth in a
certain area...and there it was. I was quite pleased with that, but it could
have been a coincidence of course, because I haven't experimented enough to
find out.
I would be interested in hearing more about some of your memorable
experiences with the Ouija.
Kind Regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#1930
From: "chriscordenuk "
Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:57 am
Subject: Re: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) chriscordenuk
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Dear All,
As the new kid on the block (Kid? Who am I kidding?) please excuse
any lapses in group etiquette.
I was interested in the outbreak of Ouija comments on your board and
offer a couple of events from over 30 years ago.
A married couple and I sat late one Saturday evening in their
basement flat in London. The drinks had flowed, all was well with the
world, and as we sat talk turned to Ouija boards. Inevitably the
letters were written, the glass was inverted, and we were away. We
made `contact', asked the usual inane questions, drew no
lasting
conclusions and decided to finally head off to bed. But before we
went we promised to all meet again the following Saturday, same time,
same place.
The next Saturday two of us were late and arrived to find the third
in a bit of state. She had been watching TV, realised the time, and
gone to turn down whatever was in the oven. In the kitchen she had
laid out 3 cups and a bowl of sugar cubes and found that all the
cubes had been taken out of the bowl and piled into a neat pyramid.
We calmed her down but she insisted we recreated the board at once
and got started. I apologised out loud for our lateness and this time
we got some more useful answers. There was a name, whoever/whatever
was female, and had been murdered sometime ago. When we finally tried
to stop the glass went haywire and eventually shot off the table. We
went to bed.
I was asleep on a camp bed in the basement lounge when something woke
me up and I found myself in a room with a beamed ceiling, from which
hung tankards. Silhouetted against a window, where there should have
only been a wall, was the slight figure of a young woman. She turned
and moved towards me, with no threat, and no words, before I asked
her to let me go back. Which I did. I could have been asleep, but
don't think I was. We subsequently found out that the basement
flat
was on the site of an old pub in 1800s whose ground level would have
been the level of the basement flat. As for the woman, we don't
know,
but the costume of the one I saw was the right period.
------------
A year later I was with another group of friends and one of them
complained he felt he was being followed. They all wanted to make a
Ouija board to see if it was a ghost. I sat it out and watched as
they discovered that a Roman Soldier was `present'. They all
knew I
had an interest in the paranormal and asked me to join in, but I
refused. However, knowing they were going to continue I drew some
protective designs, from a book I had on the `Book of
Solomon', on A4
sheets of paper, and placed them around the room before their next
session. It was a completely closed, draught free, room yet soon
after they began the sheets of ordinary paper fell to the floor as if
they were made of lead. Again I had refused to take part and so was
able to see them fall. I say fall, though it would be tempting to say
they were thrown.
----------
I have barely been near a Ouija board since. I offer the above
without any comment or judgement, except to say that I truly dislike
seeing these boards sold in toyshops.
As for my current interests, RV when involved in looking at a
different time is just as fascinating as viewing a different place.
As a group you speak of skills way beyond my level. A couple of times
when reading your e-mails I have had a `flash' of the sender.
One was
of the room where the sender wrote it, the other was the smell of a
room where a smoker lived. Both were too quick to give more than an
impression.
Best wishes
Chris
Reply | Forward
#1981
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Hi Chris,
> A couple of times when reading your e-mails
> I have had a `flash' of the sender. One was
> of the room where the sender wrote it, the
> other was the smell of a
> room where a smoker lived. Both were too quick
> to give more than an
> impression.
I often get a 'sense' of people through email. Sometimes it is strong
enough to really affect how I feel about them. It is unusually
accurate most times, and by this I mean in terms of, certainly more
accurate more often than my RV hahaha! I often develop real feelings
about people via email that I don't think I would if I didn't have "a
sense of them inside me" from corresponding with them.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1979
From: "PJ Gaenir "
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:12 am
Subject: Channeling & Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> Sharon wrote:
> I think the Ouija is just a focus,
> like tarot, or RV techniques, or scrying,
> or whatever. I think it results in a
> slightly dissociated state which enhances
> psi. I am quite sure that it is a form of
> channeling, as after a time, whole sentences
> and paragraphs start coming through at a
> much faster rate than the sluggish
> planchette would indicate.
I'm interested in channeling because it has a similarity to a few
things that I have experienced that I think are cool.
The first is energy channeling, in hands-on work (reiki-type but not
that trademark). I found when I was in that phase that I
could "channel energy 'through'" a chakra, or a color, then a shape,
then a sort of 'concept' (which sort of had a geometric shape), and
then through an identity of sorts, generally some positive christian
sort, and this was generally by just imagining that "in me" and then
the energy coming into my crown and going through me and out in
whatever way I chose but 'through that focus'. When doing this
through concepts or identities it was a very short time before I
really felt like that was part of me, and although I assumed that
this was 'merely' (!) psychology giving me a new framework to
perceive reality 'from', still it seemed like it might be related
indirectly to what some people consider channeling entities.
The second is information channeling. I mean when you are "in the
center" as I call it, you can think of anything, wonder about
anything, and the information is just "there". It's like it's
infinitely everywhere and you just don't notice unless you're in the
right state of mind. It has often felt to me like being at the
middle of a cushball, those toys that are a bundle of cut rubber
strings, as if there were infinite strings going out from the center
of me in every direction and depending on which way I "turned inside"
I'd get the information from a different "string" that I was turned
toward.
(I was intrigued later to read Casteneda's "The Art of Dreaming"
where he discusses energy 'strings'... sort of. But even as it was
happening, I was reminded of Jane Roberts' talking about "paths" of
information and "turning" toward them. I associated this to
channeling partly because even during it I was remembering a comment
like that from a channeler so knew they must relate.)
It came through a little bit like I wildly guess channeling must. I
could often invoke it just by sitting down to type or write, and then
just 'allowing' it. I could (and did) type out entire essays about
subjects I knew nothing about, from historical figures I'd barely
heard of to advanced sciences. Humorously I was sort of in denial
about all this because it was very outside my normal belief system so
I never pursued it, or tried to get info I could document and then
check out to see if it was something unusual, that didn't even occur
to me. I loved the feeling of it though. Of it just being IN me,
coming THROUGH me, it was just there, everywhere, like air usually
is, some zero-point/holographic/fractal-thing. To me it felt right;
it felt like the way it ought to be; it felt like my natural place in
the world was with this inside me.
What I found interesting was that:
(a) it clearly translated 'through' me; although the information felt
literally like raw information in pure form somehow, it was clear
that my own mental constructs and vocabulary and understandings were
used to sort of understand and communicate it, which immediately gave
it some "flavor of me."
(b) the process was a sort of art because I was capable of imposing
any amount of "me" "into" the flow, from 100% where it was just me
writing, to maybe "5%" where only my body was writing and the rest
was so much info-not-me that I wasn't even really aware of it and
seldom remembered it later. And it varied in the flow, I mean, I
could be going along at say 40% me/ 60% info, and then I'd realize
that the "me" percentage had sort of been creeping up and I
was 'leading' it a little too much, maybe at 60/40 now, and I would
back off and let it come through with less of me in it.
I figure this relates to the 'distortions' often found in channeling,
and I believe that this is a lot of what relates to Ouija and the
weird experiences people can have with both.
Well first, the thing about Ouija is people are generally trying to
contact spirits (and to many people this likely means dead people,
and even dead people who had some mysterious or violent death because
our belief systems often associate that with ghosts) as opposed to
their higher self, god, etc. So people tend to get what belief
systems have "pre-packaged" for them in the 'weird spirit entity'
category when they work with Ouija (note I said work not play).
I think the bringing it through the board vs. through oneself like in
channeling is partly responsible for the commonly reported
poltergeist effects too -- when you bring energy through yourself,
you get all kinds of side effects, some are good, some are not, some
are just weird, all are typical of psychic experience and development
and require some adjustment. But in Ouija one is essentially
deliberately bringing the energy through *one's environment* instead,
and doing so, is essentially opening some kind of pathway for energy
to come through that doorway (so to speak). Which I don't think is
bad unless it is uncontrolled, which it usually is when someone
avoids it and is frightened of it.
I had a lot of poltergeist activity at one point in my life and I
found if I just talked out loud to whatever energies were allegedly
moving stuff around, and promised to meditate and be open to whatever
they wanted to communicate, that it would mellow out. It definitely
seemed, in the end, like something trying to get my attention, and
the more I denied it the crazier and more extreme I got, but the more
I validated and accepted it and took time to commune a little, the
less (to the point of none) I had of that. Now when I say 'something
trying to get my attention' I am just as likely to consider that
something part of myself as anything else.
I've emailed with a lot of people over the years and quite a few have
talked about Ouija stuff. One thing I noticed is that when people
left the Ouija out, like say on the coffee table, most the
poltergeist activity was limited to the Ouija board, like energy
trying to communicate through it. But people open up the flow of
that energy in an object in their environment, and then they put the
object away out of sight somewhere, and the energy seems to look for
whatever medium it can come through. It usually ends up still coming
through 'their environment' or whatever IN it that might get their
attention (because the little planchette could move around all it
wanted in the box in the closet but who would notice? lol).
Someone once commented in questioning me about entity experiences, on
Bob Monroe and his ROTE experiences. I responded that when you go
knock on somebody's door they are likely to open it and say something
to you. I don't consider this good or bad, safe or dangerous, at
least no more so than any other form of psi work -- including RV --
can be for an individual over time. I think this goes for Ouija
board experimenting -- if you're looking for conversation, there's
plenty in the universe to be had.
If you've got some (even subconscious) belief system about spirits,
and those likely being ghosts, and ghosts likely being some murdered
person or some ancient native american or whatever, chances are those
will promptly show up, because just like in the information
channeling noted above, it is really what the individual turns
toward -- the only question is whether the individual is in touch
with themselves enough to know what they really believe, and what
they are turning toward, and believes that this focus is within THEM.
Most people are doing well enough to see their own belief systems in
the context of their physical life, where cause-effect is much more
obvious and feedback so much more literal. Let alone in things
unfamiliar, and usually discussing subjects esoteric.
The other thing in channeling is the 'distortion' that is, I think,
at the root of why a lot of negative opinions are had about it in
general. I think it relates to what I was saying about about what %
of me was part of the process in bringing through information. (I
never had an entity/identity attached to this. Just the info.) I
believe there is not only one's own belief systems and personality at
issue, very fundamentally, but a lot of unmanifest 'aspects of self'
which might have their own way of perceiving things, which might
actually be very helpful or might be harmful, depending.
I think some channelers which have an 'identity' in the process might
not be so much channeling that identity, as having that aspect of
self (which is an identity) interpreting the information that is
being channeled (by the person), and communicating it in turn.
I only had one experience that might by some stretch be considered
real channeling. I was sitting at my computer one sweltering night
in Seattle, around late summer 1995, and I actually got 'a word'.
Just one word! That was clearly... "given" to me, is the only way I
can put it. I had the impression I should write it down, so I did.
Then I got another "word", the next in the sentence, so I wrote that
down. This was ridiculously slow. I got another word. By this time
my brain, which is always very active anyway, was off and running in
major AOL attempting to complete the sentence. I got another word.
By the word after that, though, my own AOL was beginning to
interfere. There were some words I expected so MUCH, I couldn't be
sure, I couldn't feel clearly, if when I did get that word, it was
because it really was the next word, or because I was injecting
myself into it. Then another word came, and this happened all over
again. After like two sentences, I exclaimed, "OH FOR PETE'S SAKE!"
and abandoned the process as too MADDENINGLY slow to do anything
except frustrate me and likely cause me way too much personal
intrusion into the process while I waited.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#1902
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Glyn wrote:
> BTW...Apologies to anyone who does believe that spirits/entities can be
> the source of information retrieved via the Ouija process. I don't, but we
> are all entitled to our opinions about this..because we just don't know for
> sure do we?
Well, I had one Ouija experience many years ago. The short version is that I had
one WOW provided by the two strangers that were "driving" the ouija. (They had
answered an add for subletting our apartment and saw the board leaning against
the wall and ......)
Anyway the WOW was that I "cleverly" asked "When was I born?"
The answer was "Not born". After we all looked around at each other we asked it
to explain the answer. Answer: "Brought into world by Caesarian(sp?) " Which
was correct. "Wow" we all said. :)
That ended the session, but earlier on I had asked for my and my wife's soul
name. I have never had the opportunity to confirm the answers. Does anyone have
any ideas how to do that?
Rich
Reply | Forward
#1903
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:05 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi Don,
It sounds like you agree with me that it is a doable project and there
shouldnt be a lot of hemming and hawing. I really do not see any difference
between finding a "treasure" and finding any other object.
Being stationary is a big plus. Also, the object does not necessarily have to
be buried. I believ ethat in one of the old treasure hunt promotions the object
was fastened to a tree or utility pole in plain sight.
The point that I am trying to make is that demonstrating or "proving" RV can be
made a lot simpler and a black or white operation than the inherent vagueness
in
describing photos, locations and other typical targets commonly used for
training
and demonstrations, along with the judging of multiple photos against a set of
data. Hey, someone either finds the object or not. 100% of the time,. 50% of
the time, 25% of the time 1% of the time. Worst case is that you prove that RV
can't do it. :) so don't waste time trying and stop saying it can.. Move on
to whatever can be done. Same for any of the other methods I mentioned.
Rich
PS: I thought you once said you only do RV practice targets from your spouse.
> Don wrote
> It can be done either way. Dowsing, as an alternate but associated skill,
> can be very helpful. It's not ALWAYS needed, however. I've done several
> successful remote viewings of missing persons and didn't use dowsing.
> big snip.....
> In finding a buried object as PJ described, I think the dowsing, even if it
> isn't used in finding the general location, would probably be neccessary
> on-site to figure out where to start digging. I don't see how RV alone
> could get that specific without particular landmarks very close (within
> several feet) to the object.
>
> > You wrote:
> > "Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija?
> > ....an OBE team to prove OBE?
> > .... a coin flipping team as a control?
> > ....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the
> > Mississippi or west?, etc"
>
> I don't know if you're being facetious here or not, but they all sound like
> damn good ideas to me!
Reply | Forward
#1913
From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900...
Send Email Send Email
Hi Rich,
I think it would be a great project, and it should be absolutely "doable".
The biggest problems would probably be finding people who could devote the
amount of time to it that it would require. That would involve multiple
viewings and repeated dowsing and physically visiting different sites until
someone is correct (assuming someone doesn't nail it the first time).
What's been described would be more valuable than judging the RVing of
picture targets, coordinates, etc. in that it demonstrates a use for RV at
the same time that it is demonstrating the reality of psi in-principle. The
best thing about it is that it is simple, easy to understand, TV-friendly,
and the 'searching" aspect would add a huge element of excitement.
> You Wrote:
> "PS: I thought you once said you only do
> RV practice targets from your spouse"
I do, ninety-nine percent of the time, why? If you're referring to missing
people targets, the target problem is given to my wife and she decides how
best to approach the problem, how best to target me, what cueing phrases to
use, etc. I stay blind to the target until after the session is over,
sometimes even after that (in case she wants to retarget me on the same exact
envelope again).
By mixing the applications target in with practice targets for the week and
then pulling them out randomly every time I RV, she is then blind to it when
I do it as well. (Doing this adds an element of excitement to my practice
sessions then, as well, which almost always causes me to perform better.
Just knowing there's an application target in the pool really boosts my
accuracy).
Three or four times here lately and once or twice in the past, I've set the
up target myself and mixed it into the practice pool, but I don't like to.
Then I have to deal with aols of it every time I Remote View until I finally
do that specific target. I've learned to deal with that somewhat, but it's
still hard for me to do.
Best Regards,
Don
Reply | Forward
#1885
From: "Nita Hickok"
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:29 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 nitahickok
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ
I am doing some positive stuff for New Years myself. I have been
busy lately with some really difficult cases. I also had my car
really give me the good bye from 2002. We parked it and had it in
gear with the emergency brake on. It popped out of gear, rolled down
a hill, went across the street just missing a new Dodge truck, and
went through the door of the other restaurant across the street.
We were the excitement of Dolan Springs on the 30th. I don't know
if it was the Romanian Gypsy case I was working on or not. I do know
that 2002 had been a up and down year for me and I definitely want
2003 to be a lot better.
I had good insurance with no deductible on the liability. My
husband who was running after the car trying to capture it looking
like a Laurel and Hardy movie wasn't hurt. (I never knew he could run
that fast). The restaurant knowing Don and my habits just served him
up a cup of coffee and said you could have come over here without
sending your car in to drink coffee first.
I want to say Happy New Year to everyone and may next year be a
prosperous healthy year!
Nita
Reply | Forward
#1887
From: "etuthill_engineer "
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:20 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 etuthill_eng...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". I want to
> work on deliberately keeping the faith; holding onto
> a positive expectation that no matter what the
> trivia of daily matters, all is well in the world,
> all is well in me, things are as they should be, and
> the best can manifest any moment.
> Hope you have some grand plans too.
What a truly great message. I think my biggest resolution is to
practice RV more frequently, seems to be a recurring theme here.
Best wishes to everyone for the new year!
Eric
|