firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 057
.


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 fifty-seventh archive.


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 57

>More to the point, for that kind of search, do you think that >William's color-assignment proposal constitutes the kind of "more >appropriate associative target pool"?

I wouldn't use color. I can't really go into an extensive or exhaustive description of what kinds of targets are more appropriate, as it would take hours of discussion. But, there are some that are far better than others. Years of research supports these conclusions.

Regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


>thought (oh, yeah?), or anywhere, come to think about it, only >those who desire >control and some hidden agenda would try to suppress the search for >the truth. RV represents a HUGE threat to any and all undercover >operations. Having it in the hands of the public must have been a >nasty surprise. The disinformation boys >wouldn't bother if it didn't work.

One of the things that we have to remember is that it is the American Public (majority) that gives the marching orders to the government--e.g., "take care of things and don't let me be bothered with what's going on out there in the world. Let me live my live in comfort and not be bothered with terrorism, food shortages, lack of jobs, opressive or totalitarian issues, etc., etc."

...hence, black programs, undercover operations, covert military operations, etc., etc.

So, I guess we fickle public send a double message to our own government--take care of it anyway you can--but always give me the truth, even though I don't want to know.

In fact, it is probably near to impossible if not fully impossible to do any of the above in an open manner. The cost to us (in people loss) would be too great.

>I'm just trying to do something useful to help others. I couldn't >care less about intrigue, spying, counting bombs in silos, etc. Let >someone else do that if it seems important. The applications of RV >are so far-reaching that it boggles the mind. I'd like to see us put >it to work for planetary assistance (ozone layer, hunger, pollution, >ethnic conflict, our own coming Civil War....).

We really should care about all of those things because they constitute a large part of our reality. It's what allows lots of people to "go about their business" as if no one is trying to bury us.

You are correct that the applications are far-reaching, and it does boggle the mind. Putting it to work for those issues you've listed only takes MONEY!

If you can't convince people to use it for those things that threaten us...how would you convince people to use it for things that don't threaten us? I'm now referring to most Americans who do not have to deal with issues like hunger, pollution, ethnic conflict, etc.

>Am I being premature? The Viewers from the Unit surely have enough >experience to >find some lofty heights, not like us new ones who are still groping.

I guess you've already had about six knee jerk reactions to what I'm saying, but please understand that I'm not arguing with you--I'm simply pointing out that the vast majority of people walking around in our world probably don't know what's going on next door, never mind in the next country. Or...maybe I'm just too cynical.

>This forum (thank you again, PJ) is the place for us to pow-wow about >the general direction. I love it.

One of the major issues that always seemed (at least to me) to be buried within the RV community while we were addressing problems the American people were mostly concerned with (at least in the military sense) was--as we became more sensitive to the world at large, we also became more sensitive to what wasn't being addressed (see your last paragraph). Unfortunately, since we were being paid to "prevent and protect" in a very narrow sense, we were not afforded the opportunity to expand on the mission. In fact, it was heavily frowned on.

Think of it as going out and hiring someone to work on cars, then finding out they are better at growing fruit. Growing fruit is nice, but you did hire them to work on cars, so that is what they are being paid for.

Now that I'm no longer working on cars, I'd like to grow fruit...but, no one is interested in paying to grow fruit, at least...not as much as they were interested in repairing cars. Or, so it seems.

I'm making any sense here? :-)

Regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


>Now that I'm no longer working on cars, I'd like to grow >fruit...but, no one is interested in paying to grow fruit, at >least...not as much as they were interested in repairing cars. >Or, so it seems. >I'm making any sense here?

All too much sense. Our collective "we" is in a pickle, and changing that looks to be a major struggle. But there seem to be more and more now who'd "like to grow fruit" -- it's a start, anyway. Journey of a thousand miles, etc.

Tom C


>An inordinate number of topics, questions, confusions and problems in > RV all seem to boil down to a proper understanding and utilization >of tasking in the first place. I'm truly beginning to think that >there's a huge amount of data one should have to learn before ever >getting near the methods, tasking details as part of that. -- PJ

For me the puzzle is differentiating among the various "RV·isms" everyone refers to. PJ seems to know which is doing what, and with which, and to whom. I haven't been able to sort out the details, and I'll bet I'm not the only one. As she notes (above) this is a general problem. Couldn't a table or chart of some sort be put together to show and contrast the various elements of each RV·ism?

Or maybe a Venn diagram --- some elements are common to all the ·isms; some elements are shared by some but not by all; and some elements may be unique to particular ·isms, i.e., not shared at all.

I leave this as an exercise for those who know the facts. PJ could hang it up on firedocs.

(I wasn't quite sure what a Venn diagram is. Went fishing with Excite and found this:

http://www.maths.soton.ac.uk/EMIS/journals/EJC/Surveys/ds5/VennWhatEJC.html

which gives the general idea, if you stick to the simple parts. Beyond that, it's a zoo! Visually, this is really an impressive site.)

Tom C

------
Moderator's Note: The elephant wins. I don't even have time to do RV, let alone do important stuff for my web site, let alone do archives for this darn list, let alone.... the way it goes is, I do stuff and let people join me, and if they aren't quick and persistent despite some of the above -- oh well. Maybe in the long run this will actually 'weed out' those who are not as dedicated and we'll end up with a stronger crop of Viewers. :-) -- PJ


>Was it the Sony Corporation who had some success in teaching >children to RV words?

Symbols! The Japanese and Chinese, as well as some of the other Asian countries have some successes with their language because they are represented with patterns or symbols. Our language works differently.

Their successes are limited to more simple than complex forms of symbols.

The nice thing is, we are just as successful at symbols. So, their language is open to us, whereas ours probably isn't to them.

Regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


>>Was it the Sony Corporation who had some success in teaching >>children to RV words?>

<<<Symbols! The Japanese and Chinese, as well as some of the other Asian >countries have some successes with their language because they are >represented with patterns or symbols. Our language works differently.

Now that's interesting.

Suppose a remote viewer were bi-lingual and was able to fluently write and read, say, Chinese. If they were then attempting to remote view a document written in english would their subconscious mind automatically convert the english words to the equivalent chinese symbols, thereby making the "guts" of the text understandable to the viewer?

Jim F

------
Moderator's Note: Far as I know, getting the "concept" of a document doesn't require knowing that language. It's only doing the specific symbols that would.... -- PJ


<< Moderator's Note: Far as I know, getting the "concept" of a document doesn't require knowing that language. It's only doing the specific symbols that would.... -- PJ >>

As usual the mystic moderator is correct - different languages between peoples is a manmade construct like numbers, dates, addresses, alphabet, and as such has absolutely no relevance to RV... RV'rs transcend the mundane things of man and enter another plane when they enter the altered state.... Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]


How do I count the ways....

If you consider that in the Nike days when doing a session I'd start with a full page (not detailed) but still larger and more complex sketch than an ideogram and had no concept of the attending components, plus I'd get a few sensory descriptors and skip straight to AOL's and conceptuals... well, what can I say? training with Paul and having to back up and approach the stages properly was an enlightening experience. Basically, for the first few days I felt like a breech-birth baby that was made to return to the womb and come out head first this time. (maybe I should have preceded that comment with a sensory warning label)

Paul's approach correlates to everything I already knew about teaching the conscious and subconscious mind to communicate, plus some...as well as his understanding of plain old teaching standards (ie, visual /kinesthetic /auditory /oral -- hear it, see it, write it, speak it, you finally get it.) I am more than pleased with the results. I have done dreamwork for twenty-five years and felt quite adroit at interpreting my own unconscious content... but yikes, somehow dreams skip right over the kinesthetic component of that communication with the conscious mind. I knew about body language, eye movements, speech patterns, and even how to determine one's primary sensory mode by listening to language predicates. I was not prepared for how subtle it all could become: micromovements, and the combined gestalt of all of the above in the hands of someone truly able to observe all of them as a gestalt pattern.(which is now what I believe to be the goal of becoming a good monitor -- I'm sure I will add to that concept as I learn more).

I have already addressed myself re: the monitor feedback issue during training. I believe it was quite helpful, but that it should be limited. Past the initial training modules I think it would be counterproductive. In Paul's follow up at home sessions he does leave it to the viewer to determine whether they want any feedback as they move through the stages. I think I will practice without the feedback at this point. And since my sister and I took the training together and will have the opportunity to act as monitor for one another, we will work with the monitor blind to the target also.

Beyond that all I can say, "Onward through the fog!" (That's an old saying from Oat Willies in Austin that somehow seems appropriate right now.)

Shelia


>As I was reading Lyn's suggestion that we talk to our SC and ask it >to communicate with our hand only, I wondered if this proceedure >isn't the same thing as Automatic Writing? >Is this "Talk to the hand" a basic of CRV?

The ideogram could probably be likened to automatic writing, but with a huge difference. With both automatic writing and ideograms, you have the subconscious mind making the hand (and often other parts of the body, as well) do things which mean something to the subconscious mind, and will hopefully mean something to the conscious mind once you start trying to interpret it. However, ideograms are movements which you have 1) consciously concocted, then 2) practiced over and over (ad nauseum) until they become automatic responses to gestaltic words which are spoken to you.

For example, you concoct a wavy line to mean the gestalt "water", and move your hand to make it each time "water" is said to you. If you develop a vocabulary of even 6 or 7 words, each with its own ideogram, and practice them for what seems like an endless time , your conscious mind will drift off and start thinking about something else. When that happens, guess who's writing the ideograms down? - your subconscious. You then practice this for, say, half an hour every other day for a year or so until it becomes totally automatic and dependable. From the time it becomse automatic on, you can cue your mind with target coordinates, and your subconscious mind, having a physical language to work with now, will make your hand (almost as a reflex action) draw, say, a straight line, then a wavy line, then a line which curves up, over and down. You can then look at it and dependably say, "The site has land (straight), water (wavy), and mountains (up & over)."

Ideograms are not so much "automatic writing" as writing your subconscious mind does, using your autonomic nervous system. Automatic writing is done naturally, and like a child's scribbling, is different each time, but means something to the child. Ideograms take hours and hours and hours of work and practice, and once stabilized, not only mean something to the viewer, but have dependable form and meaning every time. They are the child's writing after he/she learns to write.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


<< I only know one thing from looking into my inner self all these years: A soul once born to Ireland remains a little bit Irish forever. >>

A soul born to Eriu (Ireland) is not only ALL Irish forever but has been ALL Irish for previous eternities...Being Irish is knowing a drawing power from such a small insignificant island that reaches out to each of its children and calls in a voice that only the Irish can hear and comprehend...We never leave Ireland... we just go visit other places and if we die while visiting... we return nevertheless.... It is an island or deep spirituality older than Rome and more complex than even the most elegant and ritualistic religious ceremony or rite. We Irish are always saddened by the fact all humanity cannot share in the gift of being Irish... Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]

------
Moderator's Note: I know, this doesn't relate to RV. Humor me. It relates to some of these guys so entwined with RV, and I delight in their love for wine women and ireland... -- PJ


>Welcome. I think you have encountered what is called "the first time >effect." The theory being that the first time you try something >psychic you use that chanel I talked about in a previous post. The >information works. It comes in on the right side of the brain, >sneaking past the left side which has no idea what is coming. After >a couple more times, the left side (analytical side) says, ah yes, >now I understand. I will make this better by analysing it. And of >course everything goes to Hades in a hand basket...

It is very important to point out that the standard curve for the "first timer's effect" gives a high beginning score and then drops off drastically, but that the dropoff is not an indicator that things have stopped happening. >>>If the student continues<<<, the curve then continues at a low level for a time, while the mind is reorganizing and having some internal realizations. Then, when the mind gets things worked out, the success rate rises almost as sharply as it dropped. The problem is that people get into the low period and give up. The mind then has no way to continue to grow, and the resultant rise never happens.

One of the most important things to realize concerning this period of time is that all those bad sessions aren't just duds... they are your mind working things out, arguing with itself, and getting new understandings. In other words, those "bad" sessions are probably the best things you have ever done for yourself. You have to do them in order to progress. In fact, they ARE progress, in and of themselves. The fact that the bottom dropped out on you is a good indicator that something is going on inside. Keep it going on! Don't give up.

If it is any consolation (it won't be), this isn't the only time it will happen. The growth process continues, and the "slump" is one of the standard and repeated patterns which happens before any breakthrough in your understanding. In other words, after this slump, IF YOU CONTINUE TO WORK, your success rate will rise and rise, and then hit a plateau. After that, you will work and work and it will seem like an endless amount of time that you work harder and harder and don't get better scores. Then, the bottom will drop out again for a time, and >>> if you continue to work<<<, will rise again to a higher level, at which time you hit another (higher) plateau and start the process all over again.

The secret to progress is to realize that there are just some things you can't learn by succeeding. There are some things you have to learn by failing. The secret is to keep the learning process going, even when there is no apparent (surface) evidence that progress is being made.

Sam also said: >...But I still want to do it, right down to my toes.

Then don't let anyone stop you.... not even yourself.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


> The secret to progress is to realize that there are just some things > you can't learn by succeeding. There are some things you have to > learn by failing. The secret is to keep the learning process going, > even when there is no apparent (surface) evidence that progress is > being made.

Amen to that ! The thing that causes trouble is the unsuitability of your mind for the job - it's just like pain in athletics. If you take the view that you will crunch the problems come what may, you will.

What I detect as the great inhibitors are unconscious situation-fears like little buried phobias. A beginner won't stimulate them much because the early stuff is almost done blind, without thinking about it. As soon as you start speculating about how did this happen and how does it all work ? you start exposing your unconscious to a lot of things it has saved-up bad memories of, inherited from goodness knows how many generations before - spooks and witchcraft and your safe reliable world being shown to be crumbling. You have to heal all that, and you don't have the remotest clue about how much of it there is either. You need to develop a lot of trust in the invisible good forces you recruit to help you out of it. It's very much as though God isn't an it or a thing, it's what you suppose it is - though I admit that as an agnostic I've had to take the line that the church God is a bloodstained mummy in a coffin and the one I want is more like a white fire that will burn me unless I grasp it in just the right way. You can get very inventive when your fears are giving you fake illnesses, I can tell you !

Dan W


Lyn Buchanan wrote: > Keep it going on! Don't give up.

Thanks for writing those simple words Lyn. Desiree and I really need to hear that once and awhile. We haven't had time (just like everybody else) to practice like we hoped we would. Why must we all have lives! Darn! We started off good but life got in the way. My learning curve plateau kind of got me down but I will get back to doing sessions since your words have moved me to RV again!

I have questions about scoring some of Desirees' sessions but I'll save them for later. BTW, The interview I did with you is airing this week and next (Two parts). I didn't have time to edit it like I wanted to but at least people will hear the info from such a believable, likeable, confident person such as yourself. I'll send you a copy when I have time (never). Just kidding...Kind of...

Joe & Desiree


> There was a very high degree of accuracy, but like all viewers, I > couldn't tell left from right, and had reversed almost the entire > map.

That is interesting. I always thought that my problem with this was personal and due to my being ambidextrous. The only way I have been able to work around it is to imagine a clock - 12 o'clock ahead and six o'clock behind me. That generally works but not always. How do you cope with this problem?

Rusty


>"the fact is that there were VERY few times in the unit when practice targets were not known to the monitor during the session...

Sorry, I was out of town for over a week and missed this initially. I consider it quite important, so I will comment on it.

Within the Cognitive Sciences laboratory (CSL) where Ingo developed his "CRV Teaching Method", there existed a major concern which has never been rectified. That is; that during training, since the monitor knows what the target is and is giving immediate feedback he may be "teaching" someone how to read body language or subtle body cues, but not be teaching remote viewing.

There was a lengthy study done by Neurolinguistic (experts in the field) researchers (hired by CSL) to try and determine the impact of such teaching methods. CSL also hired experts on "teaching methodologies" to review the training systems as well.

The result was...there is no evidence that remote viewing can be taught.

As a result, Ingo's training was not fully endorsed (as everyone thinks it was) by the lab. In spite of that, it was however supported by the then head of the lab, Dr. Hal Puthoff.

When looking at the CRV method or any other method of remote viewing as used by the military, one has to look at each specific targeting within context. So, the context in which I am currently responding deals with what was done from the latter part of 1977 through and including the end of 1984 at the military unit.

To my knowledge (and there are probably exceptions I don't know about), the initial contact with the target was done blind. If it was a photograph, coordinate, etc., it was placed within an envelope.

After it was determined that a remote viewer had made correct contact with the target (e.g., described a building and it was a building--as determined by post hoc analysis), then the viewer's own statements were used to do follow on targeting. (e.g., tell me more about what you called "Room E.") In such a case the monitor would then know of course that a Room E at least existed--but s/he would still be blind to what might be inside Room E.

On the science side of the house (within research) IN ALL CASES, except where you might be experimenting with varying levels of front loading to determine what impact it might have on RV; THE TARGET IS TOTALLY BLIND TO THE REMOTE VIEWER, THE MONITOR, THE JUDGE, AND ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED IN THE EXPERIMENT. The only person who knows what the target is, is the person who selects it (and then even they may not know what it is, depending on the selection methodology); and they cannot have any contact with anyone else participating in the experiment.

There are times when front-loading may be used. However, they are extremely rare, are only done for very specific purposes, have extensive study to back them up, and are only done with experienced viewers. I would never recommend someone new to RV or someone learning be front-loaded. I would strongly discourage it for a number of reasons:

1) It creates a false sense of accuracy where there may be none.

2) It creates doubt in the person who is trying to learn.

3) It should not be used for determining accuracy.

4) One may be learning, but not learning remote viewing as a result.

NOTE: One of the primary reasons underlying the close of the remote viewing unit, was a lack of discipline in how they were handling targets in the final twelve months. Non-judicious use of front-loading led to weaker and weaker rules regarding how things were being handled. When one reaches a point where it is impossible to tell if someone is remote viewing or is being given the answer (one is looking for), then you have to question if there remains a good reason to continue the effort.

Keeping the target blind to everyone operating on it may reduce the number of hits (number of times you make good contact with the target), but correspondingly, when there is good contact with the target, the accuracy usually skyrockets. And...valid material you can't get from any other form or source is the name of the game.

Regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


>There are times when front-loading may be used. However, they are >extremely rare, are only done for very specific purposes, have >extensive study to back them up, and are only done with experienced >viewers. I would never recommend someone new to RV or someone >learning be front-loaded.

Joe, are you talking about *all kinds* of frontloading, including the neutral variety (e.g., "The target is a person," "the target is an object"), or are you talking about the sort of frontloading where the viewer is shown a picture of part of the site and then targeted with something specific that is not evident in the picture. Seems to me that there's a difference.

P.S. Only a non-CRVer would suggest a no frontloading policy. Do you realize how long it takes to CRV a complex target? ;-)

Skye

--------
Moderator's Note: That's true, but the alternative doesn't have to be frontloading the Viewer, it could instead be "directed tasking" based on what's already been gathered as data by the Viewer. (As I think was part of Joe's post, if I recall.)

For newbies: Frontloading is when you give the psychic information about the target, vs. telling them nothing but 'go find the target.' Directed tasking is where you take something a psychic has described such as "a wood structure" and say, "describe that structure." Of course, it would take somebody who knew the target or situation to determine what, in a Viewer's session, should be focused upon in future sessions, to narrow down the answer they're looking for.

What's kind of funny is that I'm starting to notice a trend. An inordinate number of topics, questions, confusions and problems in RV all seem to boil down to a proper understanding and utilization of tasking in the first place. I'm truly beginning to think that there's a huge amount of data one should have to learn before ever getting near the methods, tasking details as part of that. -- PJ


>P.S. Only a non-CRVer would suggest a no frontloading policy. Do >you realize how long it takes to CRV a complex target? ;-)

Actually, Joe is correct in the way he described the operational RV targeting process--what PJ discusses as "directed tasking" (DT). (And, though I truly do HATE to contradict you, Skye my dear <g>--it really shouldn't take a CRVer any longer to "do" a complex target than it does an ERVer, given the same project management parameters.) "DT" was indeed the primary method used in the unit for CRV and ERV ops up until at least the point I was transferred out of the unit in late 1990 (though on "one session missions"--taskings that could be answered in one sitting--viewers might not get even that much guidance). Greg "Sloan" should be able to fill us in as to whether this practice was continued up until June 1995, since he was the last true RVer on board by then. There were other "types" of "remote viewing" practiced in the unit after early 1988 which involved a great deal of frontloading. Those are not relevant to this discussion group.

However, a correction to PJ's otherwise (as usual) excellent discussion is in order. It isn't absolutely necessary that someone in the viewer's immediate tasking chain know the target or situation to determine what the viewer should focus on in a future session. A monitor or project manager can also pick out specific threads that seem to be leading in an interesting direction based only on what the viewer has thus far provided in his/her session. Of course, the odds are increased that a useful thread is followed if at least the project manager has an idea of what problem needs to be solved. In most cases, his/her knowledge doesn't have to extend much beyond that to result in a successful operation. Generally, though, in the RV unit the idea was that the PM ought to know enough operational data to cover most tasking contingencies. Monitors were given anywhere from nothing up to pretty detailed knowledge, depending on perceived tasking needs. The general preference was to keep the monitor as unwitting as possible, according to the needs of the particular operation.

More fuel for the fire!

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


Joseph McMoneagate wrote: > Within the Cognitive Sciences laboratory (CSL) where Ingo developed > his "CRV Teaching Method", there existed a major concern which has > never been rectified. That is; that during training, since the > monitor knows what the target is and is giving immediate feedback he > may be "teaching" someone how to read body language or subtle body > cues, but not be teaching remote viewing. (snip)

In the experiments that we carried out at SRI, in the late 1970s, with the first group of so-called inexperienced volunteers from INSCOM, all training was BLIND. For example in the very first six trials that I carried out with Joe, I as the interviewer, was blind to all targets in the pool, including each day's target of course. We did six trials with each of six people from Joe's organization, whom Hal Puthoff and I selected by interviewing 30 people. We did six trials with each of six people. You would expect 6 first place matches in such a series. We got 19. Four of the people were independently significant, giving an overall P< 1/10,000. Ingo's training, on the other hand, in which he knew the target, created great problems for everyone. And many of us thought it was a very bad idea at the time (and unnecessary).

Cheers, Russell

[Archive Note: Russell Targ, scientist, U.S. Gov't sponsored RV research]


>>In the experiments that we carried out at SRI, in the late 1970s, >with the first group of so-called inexperienced volunteers from >INSCOM, all training was BLIND. For example in the very first six >trials that I carried out with Joe, I as the interviewer, was blind >to all targets in the pool, including each day's target of course.

Very interesting Russell.

From the point of view of us beginners (most of us on this list) would you suggest that we work non-stop basically on totally blind targets (ones that have instant feedback available) until we start to increase our hit percentages. This is basically what the Silva Mind Couse preaches to identify (and remotely correct) illness in remote subjects.

Cheers,

Jim F


Just so all you folks don't get too excited by the P< 1/10,000, result for six out of 30 people mentioned below--understand that the original 30 were pre-selected by multiple inteview of something over 2,000 people over a course of a few months. And the 2,000 were selected through a very specific record search.

Which would indicate an expectancy for "selecting" someone with such talent from any population is roughly around 33/100ths of a percent.

So, while RV ability can be somewhat displayed within any general population, exceptional RV (highly replicable) is probably down around 1 or 2 percent of that same population.

Regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


END ARCHIVE 57
November 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.


VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.