Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the thirty-fourth archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 34
No need to break in Liam... I agree completely in the merits of ERV over CRV for search problems... but I don't discount the ability of CRV to find out certain key facts which aid the overall search issue... Thus far in this new thing you / Sandy / et. al. are working over the computer, I have been amazed at the level of information derived from both CRV and ERV... ideally, folks like yourself start by using CRV and then narrow the target using ERV... seems to be working without mutually excluding either one... Gene...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
PJ and Mary - you just struck a raw nerve
I've got a question that may be RV related. It follows this clip.
>PJ said: (Unrelated note: I've always felt 'past-life regressions' were just > literal RV. That it wasn't so much 'your' past life, as simply 'a' > past life, and you tuned into one that 'resonated' with you for > whatever reason.
The experience: Often while driving I tend to go into autopilot (an alpha state?). In other words I'll daydream. I'll sometimes get a sudden rush of imagery right out of the blue and a STRONG kinesthetic sense of "being there". I have never experienced what I'm "seeing" or "experiencing". The images are, without exception, contemporary. The event always intrudes into whatever daydream or lip chewing I happen to find myself in at any given moment. It doesn't matter if the kids are screaming, the radio's on or what have you. If I'm daydreaming, in with the images, out with my daydream. The events are intensely familiar, but, again, I've never "been" there. It's the strong feeling I have that I'm actually "there" that makes this so real. They last as long as 3 to 5 seconds, but usually about 2 or 3. Sometimes there are "familiar" smells. These are neither OBE's nor hypnagogic states - both of which I've been through. I don't take prescription or street drugs. I don't even drink. I'm a photographer, in other words, I spend a lot of time as a visualizer. Them's the facts. Now . . .
The questions: Could I be having flashes of someone else's reality? Could that explain the familiarity - because I'm experiencing the OTHER person's sense of familiarity with THEIR situation? Why always contemporary? Could I be experiencing some form of bilocation? I have zero training in RV'g and this has been happening before I even heard of it. Could I be intruding on someone's mind? Could I be in the "now" simply out of lack of skill at moving through time?
Anyone out there who may be able to contribute? Perhaps this is why I gravitate so strongly to RV'g. Maybe I'm a budding viewer.
One of the misconceptions that continues to plague this subject called remote viewing is the idea that "methods" are "protocols."
Simply put, remote viewing protocols are rules that guarantee the remote viewer is totally blind to the target (as is anyone else sitting in the room with them).
How or what you do to process the information which is coming into the mind during a remote viewing is a "method or technique" of approaching cognition of that information.
I've heard of a Remote Viewing Protocol, an Associative Remote Viewing Protocol, and some other rather exotic protocols over the years which could be called remote viewing protocols--to include variations of those protocols which utilize various targeting techniques; but...
CRV, ERV, SRV, etc., etc., are "methods" of processing; some of which comply with RV protocol(s), and some of which (at times) do not (e.g., as when the monitor is being front loaded during during a training scenario--which may be okay for training purposes, but not for formal targeting purposes).
Over the years, I've seen multiple variations on CRV and ERV. Variations sufficient to say that there are probably dozens of definitions to fit both cases. SRV has never been displayed as a singular "method" that I am aware of (e.g., styles one through six in Cosmic Voyage).
It is my opinion that if someone can provide accurate information while operating within an approved or appropriate RV protocol, while standing on their head in a bucket of mud, whistling dixie through their left nostril while wearing a pink tutu, then like it or not--that's remote viewing.
Of course these are just my considered opinions, based on 19 years of doing this stuff.
I guess I am more interested in how someone is processing stuff in their head, which seems to be more critical to producing accurate information, than how they hold their no. 2 pencil, or how well they hide what they are actually doing from the monitor. :)
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Joe is, of course, absolutely correct... I sometimes use the term protocol erroneously... I really mean the format being used to process the information ... protocol is just a term used in my line of work and it sometimes bleeds over into my conversations on RV... mea culpa... like I said a couple of times... if you are getting info from RV... wow... great... but it can be confusing ... old pros like Joe can tell you that using a tried and true method to "process" the info in a manner which is retrievable can be an individual choice / style / method... the old pros can help you find the method but it will, in the end, be your method and it most certainly will not be a carbon copy of someone else's method... it is the subtle changes that will make it yours and yours alone... Again... I am the guilty one who used the wrong words and now I have been gently and professionally counselled by the best... I feel great... thanx... Gene...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
Tongue lashing accepted. What you have to do to draw people into a discussion! I was being (I thought) pretty nice about the whole thing because (here's the rub) as far as the public knows, there's Brown, Dames, Lyn and you out there (and me sometimes). If we take the sheer number of people claiming to know the methods of CRV (and it offspring), I'm afraid that the "new" terms are used more than the original. What neither of us said is this... The terms were selected very carefully and according to some just having a complete understanding of the terms (including their useage development) can improve your RV. BTW, best way in the world to draw out your fellow philosophers is to intentionally set up a straw man and as I'm sure you know, there are not many RVs that are formally trained in that subject.
I have to side with Paul on this one... he is undeniably one of the most experienced viewers in the business and one of my teachers in the old military unit. A rose by any other name.... Come on now... what else would you call AOL drive... are you afraid it will offend somebody in the internet provider community. The terms used then are as operative now (perhaps even more now that we have to compare them with the other cute little names that the other cute little "experts" have come up with)... I am currently still acting as a controller for a very experienced and simply great team of viewers who are doing some pro-bono work looking for important things... I won't go into what these things are because we still obey protocols concerning feedback (even if some of the other "experts" don't) and I still flame my team members when they step out of protocol by using the tried and true "impacts" and "drive" statements... Isn't it funny that we are so successful and are gaining just one hell of a reputation with customers (not wannabees) but actual satisfied customers... gosh we must be doing something right even if we don't meet the language criteria of this new age of viewers who seemed to know so much more about this wonderful thing that has been my life for over a decade... but what the hell do I know... I'm just a stupid Mick from the wrong side of the tracks in Belfast... Gene Kincaid....
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
Jean Luc... (is that a real name or are you some sort of frustrated Trekkie)... anyhow... if you want to know Sandy's success rate... don't ask Sandy... ask me. You see, she and Liam are one of the old fashioned people who use the old fashined protocols which call for little if any feedback... I act as Liam's and Sandy's senior controller (Liam acts as her on the spot controller)... You need to know Sandy is indeed a complex person, far more complex than even she lets on to be. Her success rate is excellent... Is she biased in some aspects of her complexities which sometimes causes a little AOL drive (oops sorry for the old time phraseology)... absolutely!!! But then again she has never claimed to be the end all of RV and I should add, could care a spit whether the entire world gains her knowledge or skills. There just happens to be some things in life which some people do better than others and do so in private without the driving need to share her skill with the world... Sandy is doing what she does out of a personal desire to be a good RV'r... not to prove it works to the an unbelieving world... she knows it works... I know it works and the guy she sleeps with knows it works... Isn't that enough... I don't consider myself to be a disciple of the world of RV and to be quite truthful I don't know any REAL RV'rs who do... some of the false prophets have set themselves up above us mere mortals with claims of 100% accuracy... pretty good... I wish I had as much confidence my car will start each morning... The rest of us make no claims... we don't need to prove anything to anyone because we aren't here for the the almighty dollar... we do this because there is a need for us REPEAT us to do it... if the rest of the world wants to watch and learn... OK... but don't expect the REAL viewers to start contruction on the University of RV campus anytime soon... Gene...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
>...we do this because there is a need for us REPEAT >us to do it...if the rest of the world wants to watch and >learn..OK...but don't expect the REAL viewers to start construction >on the University of RV campus anytime soon...
They'd better not! Time-tested method of stifling curiosity, creativity, boxing everything in...
> Jean Luc..(is that a real name or are you some sort of frustrated > Trekkie)
First of all thanks for your reaction. Yes, it's a real name, but does it matter on the net ?
You see, she and Liam are one of the old fashioned people who use the old fashined protocols which call for little if any feedback... I act as Liam's and Sandy's senior controller (Liam acts as her on the spot controller)...
Nice to discover that (in the still ongoing history of the RVing community chapter). Would you be so kind as to tell us what you mean by "old fashioned protocols" ? How are they set up ? How do they work ? Are they different from what has been exposed since now on that list ?
Sandy is doing what she does out of a personal desire to be a good RV'r... not to prove it works to the an unbelieving world... she knows it works... I know it works and the guy she sleeps with knows it works... Isn't that enough...
I like this behavior very much ! Really... And, I'm sorry if somebody has misinterpreted my previous post, but I never asked to anybody to *prove* anything. Go back, to my post if necessary. You can consider the whole Rving as a "black box". I don't care. But the result ? What's the result ? And you gave me an answer : excellent! Thank you for that.
>we don't need to prove anything to anyone because we aren't here for the the almighty dollar...
Glad to know there are still, out there, guys just ready to give you a hand.
>but don't expect the REAL viewers to start contruction on > the University of RV campus anytime soon...
What a pity, once again. Is it so unpleasant to imagine, one instant, to continue to develop the treasureland you have contributed to built-up in the military unit by studying-managing-and-practising RVing (I mean all together : the guys hiring your talents, the conceptors of the program, the scientists who study your behaviors, the unit managers, the taskers, the analysts, the monitors, and you the viewers, etc.) ?
Anyway, Gene, thank you once again for your input.
PS: And sorry for those who have considered my reaction to Sandy's post as an attack, because it wasn't one (once again get back to my text if necessary). And no, I shall not polemize with anybody on this list (including PJ), because I consider it of a very poor help to the community (see what happened to the Dames vs al. episode).
Paul Smith wrote: (snip) >Myself and all of my students are still using these terms, as are all >(except Lyn) of the former unit's CRVers that are still actively >viewing (this would include Mel Riley, Liam, Greg "Sloan," and a >number of others still unknown to the rest of the community). Since >I've failed to encounter a situation where these labels were not >perfectly adequate, I see no reason to change them.
I saw no reason to change them, either, but as I have told you and everyone else, Ingo Swann put out the word that he didn't want anyone using his terminology. (This before you were publicly teaching.) I honored Ingo's request, out of respect for Ingo. That is the only reason I started using new terms. Until I hear from Ingo to the opposite, I will continue to honor his request.
Now I realize that Dames, Brown, and Lyn have all changed the >CRV terminology in various ways--some perhaps for good reasons, some >for bad--and if you added all of their students up you might indeed >arrive at the point where you could legitimately use the word "most." > Still, I wonder if you would want to consider some of these systems >particularly authoritative when it comes to coining words for CRV...? > The majority is not always right.
If this response seems to be a little testy (sorry, PJ), this last quote is the reason for it. I would like everyone to know that, when I introduce the different terminology, I explain why I will not be using Ingo's terms, I explain that the community at large doesn't use my terms, and I give every student the "Ingo term equivalent" for each of my terms, so they will know what is being said in the community at large. During training, I try to use the terms as interchangeably as possible, so they will get more familiar with the "ingoisms". In actual practice, I do teach people the "Ingo terminolgy", but to honor Ingo's request, I do so in a way that gives credit to Ingo, and not to me.
(I realize that the use of the original terminology is historically accurate, and what you were taught. However, I would also like to remind you that Ingo's terms are still Ingo's proprietary property, and he did make that request.)
I respectfully request that you not lump me together with those other names in such a way again, unless, like I did above, it is for historical reasons, only. People are often judged by the company they keep, and I don't keep the company you lumped me with. Please respect me, some, too.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's note: God forbid this should devolve into actual 'politics.' There is a whole issue for discussion about terms and training style and so on. It's an interesting subject and actually quite worthwhile, though it's not really in the focus of this email group alas. I took basic CRV from both Paul and Lyn and would be a good one to comment on it, except that it is impossible for me to be anything but politically correct in some fine line down the middle, due to my business links and friendships with both of them. ("Yes, yes, they're both equally wonderful.") Someday I'll post something about it... on the web site, but not on the list. For now, suffice to say, students I know from each of their training feels the way they learned is probably preferable. ;-) -- PJ
> The terms were selected very carefully and according to some just > having a complete > understanding of the terms (including their useage development) can > improve your RV.
That's a given in any field. Improvement will indeed occur simply from the improved understanding of the desired concept. As in CRV or teaching chess - if the student is clear on the concept, he/she will reach the correct conclusions. Ummm . . . let me modify that: hopefully the student will reach the correct conclusion :-)
>That's a given in any field. Improvement will indeed occur simply >from the improved understanding of the desired concept. As in CRV or >teaching chess - if the student is clear on the concept, he/she will >reach the correct conclusions. Ummm . . . let me modify that: >hopefully the student will reach the correct conclusion :-)
That's true, if you understand what is meant by "complete understanding" in this context. If you look at some of Ingo's home page, you will see what that means in this context. For example, a "stage" meant something very different a couple hundred years ago than it does today. However, to completely understand a word (and its conceptual history) more than a standard dictionary is needed.
Also, the chess comparison is misleading. While it (may) be true that intuition plays some role in chess playing, I don't think anyone would claim that chess requires anything like the data processing required by remote viewing (i.e. computers can play chess but can't rv (here, rv being used as a verb which was its original meaning).
Let me also add something that no one seems to mention. There is a lot of semantic processing that goes on before a word breaks into conscious awareness. Evidence for this claim can be found in a variety of books. For someone interested in remote viewing this has some interesting implications (for example, your ability to remote view may be constrained by you knowledge and use of language). Now, just as memory encoding is critical to recall, there is a posibility that the way one encodes the meaning of words may play a key role in their ability to remote view concepts, "I" (that's "C" for you SRV folks) and (this is a far out claim so let me repeat MAYBE) names of target sites.
One of the reasons for starting a messy thread on a email system may not be to score points or win an arguement. One can use the system to study the perceptions and understanding of everyone involved. Communication in and of itself may have no point whatsoever (unless you want to score the time wasting back and forth and frankly, no one ever really changes their mind on these things anyway). However, you can, if you are willing to take the flames, get a good handle where everyone is coming from and where the whole mass is going. Sort of like going to school to study the teachers instead of the subject.
>>I respectfully request that you not lump me together with those >> other names in such a way again, unless, like I did above, it is >> for historical reasons, only. People are often judged by the >>company they keep, and I don't keep the company you lumped me >>with.
You were supposed to be an example of the "changed" for good reasons. But...I see your point and my point seems to have missed the target anyway. Still, Paul was kind enough to inform all of us that several of the old unit viewers are still active and I think that is a very good piece of news. Perhaps I should have added that Lyn's method contains terminology that reflects a lot of operational experience while other's often reflect either incomplete training or inexperience. I'll probably get bashed for that too, but since that doesn't bother me as long as getting bashed brings out something positive, I'll say it anyway.
>I respectfully request that you not lump me together with those > other names in such a way again, unless, like I did above, it is for >historical reasons, only. People are often judged by the company >they keep, and I don't keep the company you lumped me with.
Ooo! Ouch! Ooomf! <whack! thump! pow!> Okay, okay--I deserve all those brickbats. When I got the come-back copy of my e-mail, and observed how it looked the way I managed to plug your name in with those of certain other personalities, I knew that I better stick close to cover as much as possible, for I would eventually get what I had coming to me. I was so busy foaming off at the mouth at poor Charles, I really didn't consider how what I said might reflect on YOU. (Oh, no! Not the big ones! <whump! whappo! thwump!...>)
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
> However, to completely understand a word (and its > conceptual history) more than a standard dictionary is needed. Also, > the chess comparison is misleading. While it (may) be true that > intuition plays some role in chess playing, I don't think anyone > would claim . . .
Hi, Charles and all,
That's quite a response to my post. Suffice it to say that I happen to agree with you on every point.
I will clarify, however, that the "chess" comparison above was meant more as a generic epistemological reference than a comparison of data processing styles. While we could debate the nuances of the role of intuition in chess, it is clear that the way an individual would handle RV'g material compared to chess would certainly be at polar opposites. We are in agreement. But, in order to avoid a needless discourse on my part I'm going to interpret your response ". . . that chess requires anything like the data processing required by remote viewing . . ." as being a qualitative judgment rather than a quantitative one. Quantitatively, the highly focused stream of processing that goes on in a chess game is much more acute than in any process that requires such a multiple stream approach like Viewing. Considering not only that Viewing information comes in from god-knows where, there is all the other baggage that comes along, both contributory and debilitating that we will never see in a chess game. To illustrate, Bobby Fischer displayed none of the moral concern during his championship games that we all would during a typical RV'g session (oooooohh - I couldn't resist that one!).
In terms of etymology, it certainly does help if the INTENTION behind the nomenclature is made evident at the outset. That's one thing to Ingo's credit is that he has gone to great lengths to explain where he's coming from.
OK.... I was studiedly watching to see how you would respond to Lyn's thrashing... well taken .... humility is a virtue after all. I'm really relieved to see that the one I'm about to study with is not one of those BIG egos and has a sense of humor. Lyn, even I, the untutored, wouldn't lump you with such inauspicious company and certainly not with the BIG egos, but justifiably concerned about associations.
>>I was thrilled to get the people caught in the Titanic event, and the sketch suggesting its sinking. However, unless the ship is haunted, I didn't get the Titanic or current. If the target is Titanic current, am I meant to have RV'd the rusting hulk at the bottom of the sea, If so, what I got could be interpreted as a complete failure. Building an internal rapport is not going to be easy on that basis.>>
Good point. You've run into something that is a topic worth targeting. So to speak.
Target cues (private tasking, not necessarily what the Viewer is told) should specify "when" the View is to take place. That makes a dramatic difference in the target of course. Many potential targets don't even exist anymore. Or are dead. Or there's a skyscraper where that Amerind/Calvary meeting took place. Or....
And of course, if you have a time, you rule out ENDLESS waffling on the part of people who want to "make the data be right" (after the fact) by "supposing that such and such could be so." My favorite example was an acquaintance working with a new age group claiming RV skill (knew nothing about RV, but were working with psychic stuff and calling it RV). One member concluded the target was Atlantis. Come to find out, it was a nuclear power plant. The group was quite impressed with this session, concluding that they were so advanced they probably had nuclear power in Atlantis, so hey, that was good. That's my favorite "waffling" (as Lyn calls it) story. You'd be amazed the lengths people will go to. Very funny, at times.
One can think of time being rather like space. Your inner self looks around and fixes on whatever seems most interesting. That's usually the most energetic time... e.g., one might fixate on a place in Hiroshima at the point of the atom bomb exploding, or on a concentration camp in the 1940's, or what have you, just because the mind seems 'drawn to' whatever it most powerful -- in time, as well as space. (It depends at least partly on what your mind personally finds most interesting. Some people might prefer one energy over another, in other words.)
But your tasking should specify the time. If your tasking doesn't specify the time, you have a real dilemma. It's impossible to get accurate feedback without that.
Usually the default cue, if you're using, say, pictures as feedback, is "describe the target at the time the feedback photo was taken."
(Unrelated note: I've always felt 'past-life regressions' were just literal RV. That it wasn't so much 'your' past life, as simply 'a' past life, and you tuned into one that 'resonated' with you for whatever reason. And that this is why most people tune into a death scene when they do so... it's just the highest emotional point of that life... either that, or the most interesting for the subject accessing it, since it's something they haven't consciously experienced before. End of note.)
Now, you might not get that it was the Titanic anyway, even in an excellent session. Remote viewing in CRV structure gets 'data components.' What degree they are correlated together depends on the Viewer and session. The % of times a Viewer actually names "what" a thing is without it being an error (an analytical assumption) aren't all that high, though I suspect they're much higher for high-profile (my own term, meaning 'very recognizeable') targets.
CRV is designed to hand that job off to an analyst and others on the "team." The Viewer doesn't decide what things are. They just report straight out the data they sense. Trying to make it make sense or trying to figure out what it is, is the #1 way to kill your session cold. It is psychologically difficult to get used to this aspect of CRV. The mind has a natural "want to know" about it, and one has to learn to curb that or their Remote Viewing will always be mostly Remote Fantasy.
To me, it's similar to this book I'm working with, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," by Betty Edwards (something most Viewers I know recommend, by the way). When I recognize something, I draw it like a 5 year old. It's truly pathetic. But when I don't, I can sketch fine. I'm truly impressed with myself. It's allowing myself to just 'let it happen' without left brain interference that is a new thing for me, and really good for me, and it's an excellent corollary to how remote viewing actually works when done well. You don't look at the whole thing, you deliberately take it one line at a time, without any reference whatsoever to what it is PART of, only to what relationship it has to this other line next to it. You don't "judge where the lines goes," you just FEEL where the line goes, in relationship only to the others near. Eventually you have a pretty good picture.
In CRV, your job is just to draw and explain the lines and space, so to speak. The analyst is the guy who gets to turn the picture right side up and go, "Hey! That looks like the Titanic!"
When starting to work on RV on your own, it is well worth making sure that your target choices are well reasoned, your controls are in place, and that your feedback is going to be appropriate, before spending time practicing.
This reminds me of a story my father, a professional musician since long before I was born, had. As a teen, he'd helped a local preacher put a roof on the church one summer, and in return, the preacher bought him a guitar. He went home and being so enthusiastic, taught himself some string-melodies, old folk songs and the like. He was so proud. He went to visit a man who knew about guitars, and sat down and played him the little songs, beaming with a grin, waiting for the guy to be impressed over how he'd taught himself so fast. The guy says, "That's great, Gary. But now we have to tune it."
If you have any questions, that's what we're here for.
What if RV Targeting is an engraved, invitation to the "collective consciousness" "Dance".(A form of "remote influencing by the targeteer/s?- a sort of "will call"). All the "viewer" had to do was access this invitation and s/he got guaranteed entry into the "Cosmic Dance"- entertainment provided by "Spaceless Space & Timeless Time".
The only requirement of the invitation was to "dance" only with the "one" who had invited you and give them all your "attention".(CRV)
However, as creation will be, after several trips to the "dance", the "dancer" found their way into the venue without any invite and were free to roam and dance with whoever they wished (ERV). And they realized they had always been at the dance, they just had not opened their eyes and ears, minds and hearts.
It is then that they met other "dancers" who had an infinite variety of stories of "invitations/paths" to the "Cosmic Dance". (All Psychic functioning) And the band was playing the song: "We've been waiting for you, what took you so long?"
Blessings from a "viewbie",
>Lyn Buchanan said: > The very process of learning CRV - of setting up a line of > communication between your conscious and subconscious minds - can be > fraught with potential psychological dangers. > I received a copy of Ed's tape, and after watching it, have been > very relieved to see that there is no way anyone will ever run any > risk of such danger from watching it.
Am I correct in assuming that this statement by Lyn implies that Ed Dames TRV tape is of no remote viewing value?
Intelligence men are seldom that blunt. There is value in everything I suspect, and Lyn's more open minded than most about psychic subjects. The TRV videotape is a bit like a seminar: people already gifted and able to access psi can use new ideas to good effect, no matter what the origin, no matter what the details of the technique or presentation. People who aren't already capable, probably aren't in any danger of getting in over their heads with it. Perhaps Lyn was just clarifying some things he said long ago, when he was uncertain how the tape would turn out.
It's kind of like teaching "deep mind probes" to RV students after three days (my favorite example, mostly because I find the concept so hilarious). If it succeeded, it would likely be devastating to all students, and unethical in a big way to subject them to that, especially on criminals and so on. But you know... after three days... they're in no danger of really hurting themselves. ;-) (Makes everybody feel really cosmic and powerful, though.)
Same goes for a two hour tape. I'm sure it has its good points and its bad points (and we are not just talking about Ed's haircut ;-). As would anything published by anybody. There's only a couple hours available after all, even in person, there are limits to what you can present. (Mind you, there are limits on the video that are truly unnecessary and not in accordance with many other opinions and traditions... but, this isn't the time/place for that talk.)
I support people learning in whatever form they can, on the hope that some of the limitations in the videotape's presentation will be overcome by people finding the VWR archives, my firedocs site, correspondence with other Viewers, and things that will put the subjective in perspective for them, make them think a little, learn a little more about the reasons behind the methods-- or the way their own mind seems to work (best of all).
But if you're gonna spend your money on something, I could probably provide a long list of people I would rather see it given to...
END ARCHIVE 34
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page