REMOTE VIEWING

[PSI] Psychic Discussion Group Archives

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/yada/psi/


Last Updated: 04Nov2002
[Psi] Psychic Discussions Group Archives
Unmoderated. List Owner PJ Gaenir.
This list was closed July 4, 1998

For current discussion see Firedocs RV Home Page
PSI Discussion Archives Home: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/yada/psi/
VWR Discussion Archives Home: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/yada/vwr/
RVO Discussion Archives Home: http://www.firedocs.com/archives/Archives_RVOasisPJRV2.cfm
PJ Gaenir's Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/


Begin Archive #009 January 1998

Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:52:58 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: [Psi] Mechanism of psi [was: What would you do]

At 09:40 AM 1/26/98 +0000, PJ wrote:
>Why
>they assume that psi has to be magic instead of physics is beyond me.
>I am perfectly okay with it being a simple matter of working
>within the laws of our universe, that our physics will hopefully
>eventually figure out a larger part of.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. But the reason I'm still on the fence
about this is all those other examples of psychic phemomena we hear
about. I feel that the above must be true for anomalous cognition and
perturbation. But I can't relate it to e.g., apparitions (of living or dead),
possession, survival, divine intervention, OOBEs (not to be confused
with RV which is a flavour of AC), reincarnation etc.

>>There may be no exotic alternate universes or other dimensions -
>>just, as yet, badly understood physics.

>I suspect we have both. :-)

Alternate universes? Oh! puleeeze (as Q said to Jean Luc) :-)

>>Therefore God and his kingdom become even more remote; not to say,
>>unlikely.

>Sounds like you were brought up in a judeo-christian belief system
>that believed God was "out there" somewhere, like sitting on a cloud
>looking down or something. In my theology, god is "in here." In
>everything. Looking "for" him elsewhere would be.... er, pointless.

Sorry, I should have said "an explanation... becomes more remote".
Even so, I have no beliefs as to where God might be. If he really is
"in here" then we have to presume the existence of a hiding place
for him (by which I mean someplace for him to dwell and to "be").
That means we have to consider the existence of other dimensions,
or something.

>You relate ghosts to God? That's an interesting correlation. :-)

Of course. In view of the above I see no reason to separate the two.

Just to recapitulate:

If theory 1 (the one that says ac and ap are the only phenomena to
come under the umbrella of psi) is correct then all remaining
phenomena can be explained away as psychological dysfunction.
Under this theory there is no need for ghosts or for a god.

If theory 2 (the one that tries to encompass all phenomena) is correct
then we must presume somewhere for spirits, ghosts, demons, angels,
etc., plus all the paraphernalia and apports they hurl around, to go and
to dwell. God, if he exists must also live somewhere. We dismissively
call it Heaven and for some reason, as you point out, perhaps wrongly,
look upwards as we do so. If both of these places exist then why
should they not be one and the same place? If all these entities,
including God, exist then why should we think only of science exposing
psi when to do so might also expose God? Why must we regard them
as unrelated phenomena? For all we know it might be God's plan for
Mankind that we should eventually "find" Him. He has given us the
brains to do it. The hunt for psi might well provide the clue.

Just wildly speculating of course.

Brian


Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:53:00 GMT
From: Brian Oldham
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?

At 09:50 AM 1/26/98 +0000, PJ wrote:
>First you have to define what "real" means to you.

Oh! heck PJ, that's the all time number one question isn't it. Can I
just say real as in "has physical existence" as opposed to being
merely apparent?

>What defines solidity?
>Physically, the difference between the vibratory rate of particles
>which make up one object compared to another. Rocks are more solid
>than water because the atoms/molecules of rocks vibrate faster than
>the atoms/molecules of water. And may also be more densely packed.
>At a fundamental level it is all simply energy.

Dan's account of the badly burned corpse in the living room told how
the mother touched the corpse and described how it felt. So, for her,
the thing felt 'real' - solid to the touch. Yet, we learn that it turned out
to be a mere apparition. Her senses *apparently* had been deceived.
It doesn't really matter how you define reality and solidity. All that needs
to be established is whether or not her senses had been deceived.
Had she felt something or had she *thought* she felt something?

>What if something is "here" right next to us, but is vibratory rate
>is so different than our own spectrum of measurement that it is not
>physical to us? What if consciousness could deliberately alter the
>vibratory rate of something? What if it could become "halfway
>physical" to us? Not solid like a rock, not etheric like gamma rays,
>but physical enough to feel, yet not enough to measure with
>instruments.

Aha! Tell us more...

>>Are there stories of ghosts that have actually "felt" solid?

>Sure. I've met plenty of entities that were at least partially solid
>to my perception.

Interesting. So, pursuing the thread about reality, do you think the
entities were physically "at" the place where you perceived them
to be? If another witness had been present say, at ninety degrees
to your position, do you think that the entities would have appeared
to them to be at the same coordinates as perceived by you and
would they have seen the entity turned by ninety degrees. I ask
this because it would help verify the presumption of reality.

>... The whole incubus/succubus thing throughout
>history is another example of entities that can become "partially"
>solid.

Don't tell us you've actually entertained one of those...
no surely not :-)

Brian


Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:41:45 -0500
From: Thomas E Carey
Subject: Re: [Psi] What is a ghost?

At 12:53 1/27/1998 GMT, Brian Oldham wrote:
>Can I just say real as in "has physical existence"
>as opposed to being merely apparent?

>Had she felt something or had she *thought* she felt something?

>So, pursuing the thread about reality, do you think the
>entities were physically "at" the place where you perceived them
>to be? If another witness had been present say, at ninety degrees
>to your position, do you think that the entities would have appeared
>to them to be at the same coordinates as perceived by you and
>would they have seen the entity turned by ninety degrees. I ask
>this because it would help verify the presumption of reality.

These three quotes are good illustrations of the semantic and (dare I say)
paradigmatic mazes our language allows us to enter.

1) The ONLY way you, I, or anyone can differentiate between "having physical
existence" and being "merely apparent," is to come to an agreement with
others on what those words represent, and on categories of experience. Every
conceivable "empirical" criterion depends on such agreements.

2) The question, "Did you actually feel it, or did you only think you felt
it?" can only be answered by reference to agreement with others on the
nature of personal experience.

3) How can the "presumption of reality" be supported by one witness's
_opinion_ of what another witness (whether real or hypothetical) might have
seen? A long tradition of common law rightly rejects this in evidentiary
procedures.

We are all parties to a mass of such agreements, obviously. J. C. Pearce has
called this the ordinary consensus. Without it communication and mutual
interaction would be extraordinarily difficult. But in discussions of
matters "outside the box," as on this list, these agreements should be
identified and considered as possible limitations.

Tom Carey

"We are far more imprisoned by cultural conventions than we are by physical
laws." (Terence McKenna)


From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:52:13 +0000
Subject: [Psi] "Real" Reality

Hi Brian,

I wrote: ((First you have to define what "real" means to you.))
>Oh! heck PJ, that's the all time number one question isn't it. Can
>I just say real as in "has physical existence" as opposed to being
>merely apparent?

Well no, seems to me that could never be scientifically or even
empirically worthwhile, let alone trustworthy. Your suggestion is
that we differentiate between what is "really real" and what only
"feels real" to an individual. Yet obviously the individual thinks
it's real, often others present as well, so the "merely apparent"
measure is already a given in the conversation. Even "apparent"
measure with 6000 witnesses is called "mass hysteria" by skeptics so
one has to define ahead of time what DOES count as evidence.

Any "real-er" than "merely apparent" is going to need physical
evidence. Yu have to measure something, set some criteria for what
will constitute evidence vs. "imagination/mass hysteria." Before you
ask for evidence, you have to specify what IS evidence. Otherwise,
people can hand over evidence (e.g., "But another unrelated person
saw the same thing in the same place at a different time and they had
no knowledge of each other's stories") and one can "move the goal
posts" back and say, "No, no, THAT doesn't count as evidence...."

So, define your test tube. ;-)

>So, for
>her, the thing felt 'real' - solid to the touch. Yet, we learn that
>it turned out to be a mere apparition.

Now, now -- we did not learn that it was a mere apparition when she
touched it. What we learned, to be objective, is that the thing
eventually was no longer perceived.

When investigating or theorizing about things that are "anomalous" it
always helps to stick very literally to the facts known and not make
assumptions -- which are always a way of saying, "This is my belief
system filling in the blanks." :-) I'm just warning you from my own
experience, I've found this happens all the time when you get into
these subjects, one begins to realize just how much the mind works
like the eyes -- where it has these blank spots it just "fills in
with assumptions" to provide what seems to be a seamless picture.

(Pay enough attention to your mind and you may be amazed at how much
of your interpretation of "reality" is a mental construct, as opposed
to something you have actual evidence for. Every time I really go
into the mode of noticing this it always amazes me.)

It is just an assumption that a given thing must "always be" physical
or not-physical -- indefinitely one or the other, no shades of grey
-- or 100% solid or fake, no tangibility degrees in between.

>It doesn't really matter
>how you define reality and solidity. All that needs to be
>established is whether or not her senses had been deceived. Had she
>felt something or had she *thought* she felt something?

You cannot determine if someone's senses have been "deceived" until
you determine what constitutes reality and solidity "compared to"
an erroneous perception. You are saying, "It either was real/solid,
or it wasn't and she was deceived." In order for that measurement to
work, you DO have to specify what is real/solid. Don't you? This is
so obvious that I'm starting to think we may be caught in a semantics
loop here, I must be missing some aspect of your point.

I wrote:
>What if something is "here" right next to us, but its vibratory rate
>is so different than our own spectrum of measurement that it is not
>physical to us? What if consciousness could deliberately alter the
>vibratory rate of something? What if it could become "halfway
>physical" to us? Not solid like a rock, not etheric like gamma rays,
>but physical enough to feel...

>>>Aha! Tell us more...

That's just part of my own theories, which are not exactly novel,
but work for me, most of them are summed up by Bohm's work, it
seems, from what both of my brain cells can grok of his physics.

I think in *operation* (not to be confused with the theoretical
physics of existence), consciousness seems to be able to alter what,
on the surface, we would call "tangibility." I could be wrong about
all this and reserve the right to change my mind at any moment. :-)

Sometimes the tangibility of an identity seems to vary, or certainly
be more than 0% but less than 100%.

Sometimes they seem quite physical yet interact with the body in a
way that doesn't seem like both bodies could be equal density.

Sometimes one's own body is felt perfectly clearly, yet, the
physical body itself is not visibly affected.

Sometimes it's obvious your body didn't go anywhere, but later you
bear evidence -- from bruises etc., to separate physical objects
(ala implants) of the event.

Sometimes it seems obvious your body DID go somewhere yet there is no
evidence.

Suffice to say this all gets VERY confusing.

Most magicians are trying, as part of their work, to "tune into"
a given frequency fully enough that they can manifest (physically to
their perception) a given entity. Most probably faint when it
happens. Fortunately most aren't good enough to run the risk. ;-)

There are three ways, within the same theory-set I have, that this
tangibility-change could be working....

1 - Degree of density is altered, which in our physics would mean an
alteration in the vibratory rate of the identity.

This might be the case when, for example, identities suddenly
manifest in the living room and begin eating your ice cream.

(I'm kidding. They have never eaten my ice cream.)

2 - Operation of comparative density is different, which in our
physics is acceptable by logic, it simply doesn't seem to happen
in practice (for some reason, except with 'anomalous' stuff).

In a physics sense, it is entirely possible for two objects WE
consider solid to occupy what WE consider the same space at what WE
consider the same time. (All of these are actually subjective
definitions in layman's use.) There is such a vast distance between
the atoms of the wall of your house, for instance, and such a
distance between the atoms of your body, that there is no *physical
reason* why your body cannot actually "walk through" the walls of
your house -- the particles should pass right through each other and
never even have to touch.

So, the ability of an identity and even their objects (or in the
case of 'aliens,' craft, or the bodies of contactees) to seem fully
physical and yet to go THROUGH what seems to be physical in our
reality might be explained by this.

3 - A given identity (such as humans for example) may actually cover
a certain spectrum of frequency-levels. Actually we already assume
this but on a much smaller scale.

By my theory (which I dubbed "The Rainbow of Soul"), I compare a
"human" to a rainbow. The soul or "full self" (whatever) would be
the whole rainbow; the white light, so to speak. Each color-band of
the rainbow would be a different level of manifestation of that
light. (Actually, the light is the whole spectrum. The color
bands are just *our perception of different planes of* that light.)

What we call physical reality would be the part of the spectrum we
might call "the red band." The so-called "astral" body -- which can
feel physical on one end of its own spectrum, or mental-dreamy on the
other end, would be "the orange band." The "mental body" (as
metaphysics dubs it), the yellow band. And so on, up the rainbow.

I hypothesize (couple of years ago I wrote a personal case study
where I rambled about all this) that this entire spectrum of Self
exists all the time, and that one's perception is the moving point.
"We" don't go anywhere, our "attention" goes somewhere.

One can be fully "in the body," or be fully "in the astral body,"
(and be fully OUT of the physical body), or one can split their
attention between more than one area (be aware of the astral
planes -- er, "orange-band of frequency" even while 'in' the physical
body), or one can be somewhere in between (half of both).

It's possible that technology, if we had it, could affect the
perception in such a way as to say, "Pull a person into a dream," and
then cause them to actually physically manifest somewhere "else" in
our sense. But, I'm into a different subject here...

Vibratory-wise the red-band in my allegory is what our reality
interprets as "physical." Our definition of the red band actually
enlarges as our technology (ability to measure, as if nothing in the
universe exists or is real until WE can measure it) grows.

IMO the other levels of us are just as real, and there may be
identities who interpret THAT color-band (frequency level), say the
orange, as their own "physical" plane. We exist on all of these
levels all of the time; we span lots of layers. We call this our
world, others call the other planes / bandwidths theirs. Some
entities only span a few layers, even one. They're what
magicians call elementals: very simple, one-concept entities.
Usually we only encounter each other when our "attention" is diverted
from the "here" and begins perceiving some of the other planes --
and the things which "live" there.

In my theory, when someone dies, it is like when you have a crystal
that you're focusing a light through into a rainbow, and you
"unmanifest" the red color band of the light. The red still exists
holographically; it simply is no longer manifested. The light itself
(the soul if some wish to call it that) didn't go anywhere. What you
changed was the crystal, the nexus point of manifestation -- or
literally "your focus."

Perhaps it is less a matter of "going somewhere else" when we die as
simply "paying attention to somewhere else" which may be a different
reality. We may be as "here" as we ever were space-wise.

On the subjects of ghosts, I would hazard a *wild guess* (I'm no
expert on the topic and have never even discussed it before that I
recall) that most exist in the frequencies just beyond the red-zone,
in the orange zone (or an area in between those two bandwidths, a
sort of frequency- purgatory where one is neither one nor the other).
In the "astral plane" as some would call it.

A slight change in frequency on the part of identity (ghost), just
lowering their rate of vibration slightly, could bring them into what
WE consider the physical. Or an increase in their focus for some
reason that gives them more definition to our perception And
these things could take them back OUT of being physical just the
same.

This might be why ghosts are usually only seen or sensed (by
*non-sensitives*) at certain points, which are usually either when
(a) something changes in the physical environment, or (b) some
peak-emotion point related to the identity itself happens. (Eg. the
anniversary of the night of their physical murder.) The
consciousness of the identity may be affecting them in such a way as
to bring their rate of vibration "near enough" the "physical-
bandwidth/plane" to be perceived by people.

(Or, it could be a change in perception in those seeing it -- but
that's not to suggest that the perception is more or less wrong or
right, just changed.)

We change our own "frequencies" all the time. Emotions are basically
a frequency (or a subjective interpretation of a physiological
chemical which is generated at that frequency). You can put someone
in a room and bombard them with a given frequency and "invoke that
emotion" or state of mind in them. So we already demonstrate that an
identity's state of mind affects "where they resonate" (and vice
versa). I am merely hypothesizing that there is a larger universe
than the one we know, and that what we call physical reality is
just one little part of its spectrum.

Many psi-sensitives, and many people experiencing NDEs and "contact"
demonstrate super high-range hearing, marked effects on
electromagnetics (watches, streetlights, etc.), and things like that.
It is possible that 'psychics' (natural sensitives, I mean when psi
stuff like ghosts are seen unexpectedly) are in fact operating (or
some part of them) at a slightly "higher frequency." So they
literally perceive a different bandwidth of frequency than most
people. One that might be "just beyond" the physical frequencies --
but very close to them.

On a super-simplistic scale of 1-100 for example, with each number
being some defined frequency-bandwidth, ordinary people might
perceive anything in the vibratory (frequency) levels 3-10 (and they
probably vary depending on conditions), while sensitives might have a
variable range of 3-15, or even 7-15.

It is even possible that psychology is also affected by "where"
one's "center of frequency" is, which might explain why the term
"airy" is so often aptly applied to psychics who seem to need
"grounding."

But I digress wildly, as usual. Back to the original point:

If a ghost walked through the walls and away -- your measure above
would say "it was proved, in retrospect, to merely be *apparently*
physical," as if "the senses of the individuals present had been
deceived." Maybe they were not. Maybe it was completely physical
for that time.

Semantics, again. I feel in order to answer your question (which
contains many assumptions, you may not realize, that have to be
dealt with before answering the question can be gotten around
to), what is necessary is a definition of what we call physical
reality and a recognition that our PERCEPTION of physical reality is
just that -- our perception. It is not physical reality itself.

Bazillions of things exist physically around us and even inside us
that we are incapable of perceiving. We can measure them with other
tools, but biologically they are not perceived as "real" or "solid."
What is real? Can something be invisible yet still be "real?"
Obviously.

So what determines "real" then? What we biologically perceive? Ah,
but there you go -- does it matter if the perception of the woman who
saw a manifested-ghost was "deceived?" If she perceived it, well,
that is reality to her.

How can you measure such a thing, except to define what you'll call
"physical" and be in the place, with the tools, to measure such at
that moment?

Or, does this conversation boil down to, "reality is not measured by
science but rather by majority vote of how many people perceive
something? It has to be reality "to" more than one person to count?"

>Interesting. So, pursuing the thread about reality, do you think
>the entities were physically "at" the place where you perceived them
>to be? If another witness had been present say, at ninety degrees
>to your position, do you think that the entities would have appeared
>to them to be at the same coordinates as perceived by you and
>would they have seen the entity turned by ninety degrees.

Probably depends on their perception. I can't guess for you
because I don't know, since nobody else was there.

As I noted, it's possible that some people perceive things slightly
outside the perception of others for pretty basic, physics-type
reasons, as oppsosed to "magic" (which some interpret psi to be).
I had spent a long time doing conscious delta meditations, which are
very difficult, and do have a tendency to whack people's reality out,
probably because one begins "perceiving" frequency-levels, when
awake, that are normally only perceived when at the deepest stages of
sleep.

As for identities, sometimes I've encountered physical identities
that I could hear, touch completely, smell, etc., but couldn't see
them. Why is that?

Well, I can feel heat but I can't see it. Does that mean it's not
real? I can smell and taste and hear things I can't see. Does that
mean it's not real? No, it means that these things, in a physics
sense, are not vibrating within the frequencies that make up our
visual spectrum. E.g., heat, light, are just energy at a certain
frequency. If you change the "frequency" of energy we perceive as
light and bring it down enough, it eventually becomes heat.

Go above (or sometimes below) the visual / audible / tactile
sensories, that limited little bandwidth group that we call "physical
reality" (based on our biological filter-perception) and you have all
kinds of things -- X-Rays, microwaves, gamma rays, et al. -- that are
real, and measurable by our current tools, and yet not perceived by
the average person.

>Don't tell us you've actually entertained one of those... no surely
>not :-)--

Well I didn't know what it was at the time. I hope that redeems me.
Lots of entities have a thing for "merging" (what we call "sex") so
it didn't seem all that unusual to me. Sigh. I'm oblivious to the
obvious on that count at the best times, though.....

PJ


From: "John Krimes"
Subject: Re: [Psi] Hypnagogic ESP
Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:57:40 -0500

> Sounds like you're teaching yourself ERV! :-)

I believe so.

> Once you have a few literal OBEs, you realize the difference is
> pretty vast. No big deal... call it what you want... I'm just trying
> to give you some background so if you're talking to anybody
> experienced in the sciences of psi, you'll know the terms.

For the past two months I've been working on a method to induce an OBE, and
in the between times, have worked on RV targets while in an altered state.
Anyway, my point being, two weeks ago I successfully induced an OBE and
yesterday was also a success. As a former user of psychedelic drugs, the
drug induced experiences don't even come close to the exhillerating
feellings of an OBE.

> You're right about the "holistic" quality too. Hypnagogic-level ESP
> tends to be much more conceptual, emotional, stream of consciousness,
> allegorical, etc. and tends to pick up more of that nature of things.
> As opposed to traditional Controlled Remote Viewing methods for
> example, which force a person into a mold of physical descriptions
> until fairly late in the process.

Actually, what I meant by "holistic," is that my understanding of the
universe and its multiple demensions is set up like a holigram, in that
even the smallest part of the holigram has all the information to produce
the whole picture. And the holistic information is the information that we
have access to and it also surrounds and is part of our very being. So
I've termed this information, holistic information. I hope that makes
sense:)

> Hypnagogic psi work also tends to be vastly more "experiential" than
> CRV -- in short, you "feel" it more, and it's more FUN. :-)

While in an OBE state, I am completly conscious(I could balance my check
book, if I could pick up a pen). One of my next goals is to cue myself
with an RV target to see what happens. I believe, I'll end up at the
target site.
I guess I'll find out

> >>If anyone wants in depth details on my hypnagogy induction process,
> >>please ask.

> Why don't you post it to the list? I'm interested, and I'm sure many
> others are as well.

This might be a little lengthy, but I want to make sure that others like
myself, who are trying to fiqure this stuff out, for the life of them, have
as clear of an understading that I can give in words.

Quick history. About a year ago I started taking the investigation of psi
seriously. I worked with CRV for about 8 months with virtully no real
success, other than learning more about myself than I thought there was to know.

I had read "The tibetan book of Living and Dieing" by Rinpoche Sigol and
"Your Sixth Sense" by Belleruth Naparstek(Joe McMoneagle is in this book!),
these two books showed me the importance of meditating, not only for
activating these "super powers," but also I learned how to be more
sensetive( which is part of learning RV, IMO).

RV just wasn't cuttin' it, so I decided to check out OBE's to see if I
could find some more secret information to making this stuff work. I read
every latest and well known thing writtin about OBEs Bob Monroe's three
books, Bruce Moen's "Voyages into the Unknown" and William Bulman's "
Adventure beyond the Body."

I then started using HemiSync's "Transcendence" tape, sorta as training
wheels to help me experience altered states while meditating. Then a
couple of months later, I could get into these altered stated without the
tape.

My induction procedure goes as follows.

I lay down and strech and get comfrotable. Then I start with my breathing
and slow it down as much as possible but where its still comfrotable. Then
I start my visuallizations. I usually start with visuallizing the out air
coming out of my solar plexus area( which I consider the energy of my
body), Then I breath in this energy which I visuallize going to my mind and
keeping it alert. Then I usually do
some other visualisations involving love and buety.(Feeling or being love,
IMO has the ability to be a spring board to higher states of consciousnes).
Usually by this time I've come to what I call the second state. At this
point, the perception of the body is different, problably due to the
altered perception of the mind. The body feels less attached to the mind
or lighter than usuall. This second state has a range, in other words if
you go deeper in the second stage, you will begin to feel absolutly
wieghtless. The RV I've done lately, has been in this state. Then the next
state I'll term as the pre-hypnagogy. In this state of mind, I hear a
buzzing sound that varies, on and then off, If I keep it going within a
minute or so, the buzzing is more on than it is off and it is at this point
where I exit. The first time I rolled out of my body, out of bed and onto
the floor. The second time I crawled out of my body and onto the floor.

I've also found that fitique plays a helping hand in inducing altered
states. Too much isn't good and too little isn't good. I believe fitigue
is just training wheels until experience and intent takes over.

I'm very very new at this. I believe RV or OBE is only the beginning.
Theres much to be learned about our universe, If the world doesn't end
first.

If anybody wants to argue my teminology, feel free, I won't get involved.:)

Thanks for letting me share.
John


End Archive #009 January 1998

All the PSI Archives (incomplete):12   11   10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1


All contents on this website are Copyright © 1995-2002 by Palyne 'PJ' Gaenir.
All rights reserved. Contact Info - Firedocs Home