Dex’s first warning was in the Edgar Cayce thread.
OOOPS, sorry, thanks, DaveW. My apologies. Senility, I guess. Nonetheless, the warning is there once: just delete the first and last paragraphs of my posting.
A six-page long post that consists of quoting every sentence of someone else’s post and responding/rebutting isn’t useful debate, it’s nit-picking and sniping. In my book, anyhow. I don’t believe that anyone reads those very long posts, and I don’t like having to read them to check that comments remain on a reasonably polite level.
Duck, you were not being singled out, you’ve certainly added many substantive points, but they’re lost in a mass of quote/counter-quote that quickly becomes unreadable. And the same comment for the others who are doing that. Your last post is a prime example – it would have been far more effective as a one line post, without quoting and counter-quoting ad nauseam.
“He said, now I said, then he said, now I say, then he said and I responded and he said and now I counter-respond… ad infinitam.” I mean, c’mon, it’s boring as hell. And long, so it delays the downloading.
There are times when the use of quote/response is useful. There are times when it is annoying and gets in the way. I started to edit Duck’s last post to eliminate all the quotes, and then I realized that was intentional satire/sarcasm, so I have left it to speak for itself.
Why write six pages when one sentence does the trick?
In any case, I think this has now gone on as long as it needs to. We have believers vs non-believers, and at that point, there’s little useful information being exchanged. Start it up in Great Debates.
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 10-24-2001 at 08:42 AM]
Okay, obviously I’ve fallen through some kind of interdimensional warp here, where I’m supposed to have read a warning to other posters in a completely different thread and to have somehow extrapolated that to include this thread way over here. Where is Janeway when you need her…
And now suddenly quoting in Staff Reports is no longer allowed? I’m sorry, I must have definitely missed something.
How can I respond to fairly lengthy posts without indicating exactly which portion of said lengthy post I am responding to, especially when there are several intervening posts? I am baffled, utterly baffled.
Are you saying that we should just let these kinds of comments slide? That we can only rebut those portions that it would be immediately obvious to other posters which portion you’re responding to?
This is a message board on which dialogue is encouraged (I thought). Part of having a long-distance dialogue with someone is making sure that he knows exactly which part of what he said you’re responding to.
An enormous portion of all the dialogues on the entire Straight Dope Message Board is carried out at long-distance, sometimes with many intervening posts.
Shall I go look up how many Staff Reports threads in the last 30 days have even more substantial quoting and “discussion”, yes, even debate? And I don’t recall seeing any of them get warnings about being boring, or taking up too much time to load?
How about all the people that come in here about homeopathy, or HIV not causing AIDS, or any of the dozens of other quack medical things that are covered in Staff Reports? I don’t recall that they were merely awarded a few lines of posts, or that anyone was warned for using too many quotes, because “it was boring”. I remember at least one homeopathy thread that went on for pages, and weeks, and that wasn’t accomplished without a certain amount of quoting.
You started to edit my last post so as to eliminate the quotes? But then you realized it was sarcasm? Did it occur to you that I included the entire text of both your previous posts because, frankly, I was worried that I really had fallen through an interdimensional warp, that I thought there must have been something else in the thread that I just wasn’t seeing, and so I quoted you in entirety in the hopes that Buckner or Irishman or somebody might come in this morning and point out some stunningly obvious fact that would make it make sense, and then I could say, “Well, this is all I saw that he had posted so far.”
It also occured to me, briefly, that someone had hacked the boards, stolen your password, and posted it just to jerk my chain. And then after I complained, Trollie would go back and edit the post, so I’d look stupid. I wanted proof that “C K Dexter Haven” really did post that.
This is all so unfair of you that I have to wonder whether there’s something personal about remote viewing, that you’re demanding that us Dopers handle the subject with kid gloves. Would Cecil just stand here with his thumb up his butt and say, “Gee, Glenn, that’s real interesting,” and not bother to rebut anything? Because that’s sure what it sounds like you’re saying here. I’m getting a “back off, Ducky” message real loud and clear. Is that what you want, for us to just all drop the subject?
So what am I supposed to do with the 10 pages of the Farsight Institute’s On-Line manual that I’ve currently got Copy and Pasted into WordPad, preparatory to actually wading through the thing in the hopes of finding out for myself how remote viewing works without having to go through a filter?
Shall I just skip it, and not fight anybody’s ignorance? 'Cause that’s sure what I’m hearing here. I ain’t done nothing in this thread that ain’t been done before in Staff Reports, and I’ve been a lot more polite about it than some other folks have, too.
<< And now suddenly quoting in Staff Reports is no longer allowed? >>
No, Duck, just quote judiciously. There is no need to respond sentence by sentence to every single point. That’s not discussion or debate, that’s just lengthy and boring.
Example, when you pointed out that I hadn’t issued a first warning here, there was no need to quote every single one of my posts in its entirety. You could have said: “What warning?”. Get it?
If not, then read on…
Well, no, not really, interdimensional warps aren’t allowed on the boards.
Now, Duck, didn’t you see my post, right before yours, where I apologized: << OOOPS, sorry, thanks, DaveW. My apologies. Senility, I guess. Nonetheless, the warning is there once: just delete the first and last paragraphs of my posting. >>
See? I said it was a mistake, this was only the first warning for this thread. You didn’t need to have extrapolated nothing. Us mods is only human, and I goofed when I thought this was a second warning. It was only the first warning in this thread. DaveW caught my error. I apologized for it.
Well, cancelled, actually. That show came to an end.
Not at all. OVER-quoting, needless quoting, repetitive and lengthy quoting makes for an unreadable topic and is frowned upon. Excessive quoting is akin to jerk-hood, disallowed on this Board.
Come, come, Duck. You can quote judiciously and referentially when needed. For instance, if I said “This is the second warning…” you would not need to quote every single sentence I wrote in the thread to point out that there was no first warning.
WHich kind of comments?
No, I’m saying that the Boards run slow, that loading up topics takes time, and that a CONCISE argument is better than massively lengthy amounts of quote/response/quote/response.
Well, yes, but certain types of dialogue are encouraged in certain forums. Nasty, cut-throat insults or tearing someone
s argument apart word at a time, goes in the Pit. Witnessing (which this stuff on viewing is rapidly becoming, IMHO) goes in … um… wherever it goes, but not here.
Yes, and part of it having a dialogue (rather than a series of lengthy monologs) is being concise and focused.
Yes, we agree on that.
If it will make you feel better, certainly you are welcome to do so. You’ll need to define “more substantial”, of course.
Different moderators have different thresholds and different concerns. My concern in this instance is that, at a certain point, the discussion is no longer “comments on staff report” but is “great debates” or “BBQ Pit.”
Well, no, this didn’t occur to me. It also didn’t occur to me that you were having a psychotic episode, that I had been kidnapped by Elvis, or that the entire topic had been cleared out by the people who faked the moon landing.
Not at all. Don’t get paranoid. I saw the same problem in Petra’s posts, and in someone else’s posts (I can’t find it now because the scrolling takes forever and I got a short time frame.)
You may do with it as you choose, but DO NOT QUOTE IT HERE IN ITS ENTIRETY. That would be a violation of our copyright policies, I assume.
Again, you may do as you choose. But it seems to me that you need to set your personal-sensitivity-o-meter a leeeettle lower.
OK, now, class:
Consider Response #1 and Response #2 above (note that I don’t need to quote them in their entirety because they’re the prior two posts). Note that Response #1 did involve a quote/response. Note the difference(s) between Response #1 and Response #2.
Now, answer the following questions:
- Which post was easier to read, understand, and follow?
- Which post made the point most effeciently?
- Which post is easier to download and read?
- Which post will be easier to scroll by, in a few hours, when you want to get to the end of the topic quickly?
I rest my case.
Get thee on with thy (plural) lives.
LOL! 
This thread reminds me of a bunch of fleas hopping on a fresh piece of meat on a hot, sultry day :)!
Aloha!
I began remote viewing about 12 years ago using an altered state method of projecting my awareness to another time and place to witness and record information about a particular event, person or place. This method is called ERV or Extended Remote Viewing. I was given a symbol which was an encrypted identifier relating to a particular objective or “target”. The process required that I focus on this encrypted symbol while listening to instrumental music overlayed with “theta” and “high beta” tones to entrain the brain to oscillate at a low theta/high delta/high beta harmonic brainwave state…this opens the communication pathways to receive information about the “target”. All I was given was “focus on the white rose” (or whatever the symbol was for that target) and go to the target. I would spend about 30 minutes in this state and witness the visuals, sounds, smells, textures and kinesthetics of the target and would also receive some high-level concepts about the target that didn’t necessarily relate to the sensory data…ie not obvious to the physical senses. When I came up from this altered state, I was then required to sit down and render a synopsis of what I had seen and experienced during the viewing session including detailed drawings of the target, descriptions of what I had seen and what my feelings were about the target. After I had given my report I was given feedback as to what the target was. So key to remote viewing is that the viewer is “blind” to the nature of the target…is not given any information about the target. Four years ago, I learned the protocols that HRVG uses and have subsequently become an operational viewer and instructor of HRVG method and use this method exclusively.
This ability to project your awareness non-locally has been reported for centuries. It is an advanced communication skill. Because it is a mental process, science has not as yet shown how it works EXACTLY, just as we have not shown EXACTLY how “thinking”, feeling", “perceiving” works physiologically. As with all communication systems including our primary system of language, certain tools, methods and rules apply. And as with all communication systems, the application of those tools, methods and rules depend upon the education and level of skill of the communicator. It takes time to develop all communication skills and it is safe to say that if you are a poor communicator in terms of verbal and written language, you will be handicapped as a remote viewer.
ERV certainly had its disadvantages because the viewer was not fully conscious when remote viewing and had to learn to “manage” his awareness on target, remember what he experienced and then had to have the intelligence to be able to report it accurately.
The protocols that the various schools use to collect remote viewing data developed out of the need to collect data in a more conscious, controlled state. The HRVG method was developed to quantify remote viewing data for intelligence purposes and to minimize some of the error factor. The HRVG method is a combination of alert state data collection (using specific intent driven directives to the subconscious mind within brief windows of alpha-peaks in the brain when external stimulus is shut down by closing your eyes, pausing and directing your focus) and extended remote viewing which is altered state data collection with a monitor and a precise analytical process to extract corrobrating data between multiple viewers… The protocols greatly increases the amount and accuracy of data collected.
However, it is not a 100% science because we can never eliminate the human factors that prevent us from focusing 100% of our awareness on a singular idea 100% of the time. Each session will be a combination of congruent data and contimination (imagination or analytical overlay).
But if you doubt whether remote viewing works…you might want to read Joe McMoneagles book “Remote Viewing Secrets”. Also on http://www.hrvg.org you will find many sessions showing raw data that demonstrate that the viewer made target contact. Go to PROJECTS and browse through the Kapitan Man and Erminmink presentations…unfortunately, MJ001’s site is down, but you would see numerous sessions that demonstrate that Remote Viewing works beyond just getting isolated sensory data.
Hope this has been of some interest to you. Of course, it is always more interesting to those that remote view…and definitely, it is not possible to cover all the nuances and cogent aspects of remote viewing on a forum such as this…our beginners training is 6 months…
Thanks for letting me chat :)!
Aloha,
Mana
I see a pattern emerging here.
A member of your group joins the SDMB just for the purpose of advertising your website.
Other members of the SDMB ask specific questions about “remote viewing”.
The “remote viewing” advocate disappears without answering the questions.
The next member of your group joins the SDMB for the sole purpose of promoting your website.
Questions are asked again, we are told to go to your website for answers, and the true believer disappears, never to post again.
Yet another member of your group appears etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Please do not post at the SDMB if you do not intend to stick around to discuss the issues you yourself have brought forward.
Well, I am currently in the process of reading the Farsight Institute’s on-line instruction manual, and summarizing it on behalf of the Teeming Millions. I am also working on reading what there is of the HRVG’s “Sessions Interpretation” data in their FAQ, and correlating it to what I’m learning from the Farsight Institute. I am learning some fascinating stuff, and no, I’m not just meaning to make fun. I have some suggestions for experiments the HRVG can do, for one thing.
I hope to have this all done today, ready to post tomorrow. And since Dex suggested moving this over to Great Debates, I thought I would just post a link here and start a new GD thread, probably tomorrow.
So come one, come all, tomorrow. In Great Debates.
P.S. The Better Half, peering over my shoulder (“what ARE you doing?”), upon having the project explained to him, especially the part about possible differences between the Farsight Institute’s method and the HRVG’s, predicts, “They’ll just say that the Farsight method is wrong, that they’re ‘followers of Peter’.”
[that’s a Bible reference, I Cor. 1:11-12, "My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”]
[“Cephas” meaning “Peter”]
Hi Duck Duck Goose and Czarcasm!
Hmmm, you have us all wrong. We are not here to advertise our website…we get over 250,000 hits a month so that is not our purpose…we are not in the business of “selling” our product although we do have a nominal fee to take our six month online training…we have a different approach to training and find that we develop some good operational viewers that way.
Frankly, the replies to Petras posts were so convoluted that I didn’t find it interesting enough to wade through all the bantering. If you want to know something about remote viewing, ask a straight question and I will give you a straight answer.
In my post above, I was attempting to answer some of the questions as to “What is Remote Viewing?”
There are a number of different schools of RV…most of them are variations of the original CRV or Controlled Remote Viewing…I have seen excellent work produced by all the various methods…but they are different from one another…
Sorry I can’t stay longer…I have two full time jobs so that does not leave me much time to hang on any BB…
I will participate on other threads that are of interest to me.
Aloha,
Valtra
Mana, thanks for the polite post. I hope you stick around for more discussion. You said that RV is not 100% science, but I think this shows somewhat of a misunderstanding of how science would apply to this situation. You claim that RV exists. If it exists, you can use the guidelines of science to figure out how to observe it, measure it, etc. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, or anywhere close.
The way this would work is that you would come up with a statement of something that you could do with RV, assuming that it exists. In my earlier post, I suggested that an RV expert could attempt to view 20 images (given their numbers), write down notes about each one, and later try to match up the images with the numbers. Matching several of them sounds like it would be a reasonable expectation if RV exists, but if you don’t think so, just come up with some other measure. The only requirement is that it needs to be objective, so that no interpretation is required to figure out if it was successful.
In my example test, if you could reliably match more than one or two out of twenty, you would have successfully shown that RV exists. If RV doesn’t exist and the matches are just random, you’d get zero correct about half of the time, and rarely get more than one or two correct.
This is how science would address the question. A reasonable request, I hope you would agree. A mere 10% success ratio over several trials would allow you to prove to the world that RV works. You could also use this test to claim the one-million dollar JREF prize.
If you don’t want to do something like this and instead just keep believing that it exists based only on subjective interpretation, then you’re fooling yourself, and you won’t make much headway with this group.
First, let me apologize to the HRVG people, because I haven’t really gotten into your website. So far, I haven’t seen anything in any of your posts that seem to indicate that it would be worth my time. There have been some allusions to possibly interesting bits, but these posts aren’t detailed enough to overcome my reluctance to wade through many pages of data looking for the ‘gee-whiz’ parts.
So, I hope you’ll be willing to help me. Could anyone point to just one example of a remote viewer coming out of a session with an actual fact that applied to their target but not to 10,000 other things? Perhaps an example of someone who didn’t know what the target was and was able to guess what it was based on the session data? Or maybe a remote viewer that came up with an insight about the target that was not known by anyone involved in the study, but was discovered to be true later on (hopefully by someone who did not know about the session)?
I realize that I’m asking for an anecdote, and that it isn’t going to represent scientific proof. But maybe it would be enough to get people like me to read up on the technique.
If you have such an example, please post the details for me. Be specific, make sure to tell me every step of the process, and please, if you refer me to your website for information, post the URL and tell me exactly where to look. If I can’t find what you’re referring to in less than a minute or if it exends more than 10 paragraphs, I’d prefer that you paraphrase it here.
Okay, we are now open for business in Great Debates! 
Petra, Rainfall, et al, if you will click on this link it will take you over to the new thread. I have now worked my way through the Farsight manual and I have some conclusions, questions, and suggestions.
Remote Viewing in Hawaii: continuation of the Staff Reports thread
I would just like to say with regards to remote viewing, that I too was skeptical. I have been VERY skeptical about things like UFO’s, Out of Body travel, and all those other holloween sounding “contrivances” foster on us by our society. Still, I gave remote viewing a chance ( it’s day in court if you will ) and, as a resuilt have had to take a closer look. I took the HRVG online class.
I followed the program as I was asked and came up with some very astounding results that really defies conventional thinking. When you do a target blind, meaning you are only given an address which is the target ID number ( or letters ), and not given ANY other information, and you actually draw a picture of the target that is validated when the target address is “unlocked” for your inspection on a prearranged day, the result is nothing less than shock!
On one session I had generated data regarding “water”, “flooding”, a picture of a helicopter. When the target ID became available for my inspection I was quite astounded to find that indeed the picture was of a helicopter over water, the flooded Holeman Airfield in Minnesota from about two years ago.
The same thing happened with another session where I drew a picture of what looked like an upside down bolw turned slightly sideways with lines drawn in front of it, and words that had come to mind like, “people, music, clapping”. The picture I drew indeed looked like the Hollywood Bowl.
The target WAS the Hollywood Bowl. SO something was deffinitely going on that I could not explain with conventional thinking, but at the same time that does not mean the acceptance of magical thinking either.
However, not every RV session one does ends with that kind of success. Many sessions are only marginally good, meaning that while some of the data is congruent with the actual target, much of it is not, or is TOTALLY off.
How to explaine that? I don’t know, but I do know that that is no reason to dismiss RV out of hand.
I would suggest that we keep our skepticism. It’s a good thing if practiced properly. By that I mean a decided difference between blatent closed mindedness and real skeptical thinking where one “remains open to the truth REGARDless of what the possible truth might be.” Even if it violate our most cherished beliefs. That takes a real maturity rarely found on public discussion boards.
So what IS the truth about Remote Viewing? I don’t know. But I imagine if we take all that energy we have expended by saying something is bullshit, dismissing it out of hand, and applying that energy in real honest research, our own personal explorations or that done in a scientific lab, we might be able to find out.
Robert
Robert, all the “witnessing” posts are supposed to be over in the Great Debates thread from now on. I draw your attention to the link in the post directly above yours. Perhaps you’d care to Copy and Paste your post over there? 
Because I think we’re basically done over here…
I would just like to say with regards to remote viewing, that I too was skeptical. I have been VERY skeptical about things like UFO’s, Out of Body travel, and all those other holloween sounding “contrivances” foster on us by our society. Still, I gave remote viewing a chance ( it’s day in court if you will ) and, as a resuilt have had to take a closer look. I took the HRVG online class.
I followed the program as I was asked and came up with some very astounding results that really defies conventional thinking. When you do a target blind, meaning you are only given an address which is the target ID number ( or letters ), and not given ANY other information, and you actually draw a picture of the target that is validated when the target address is “unlocked” for your inspection on a prearranged day, the result is nothing less than shock!
On one session I had generated data regarding “water”, “flooding”, a picture of a helicopter. When the target ID became available for my inspection I was quite astounded to find that indeed the picture was of a helicopter over water, the flooded Holeman Airfield in Minnesota from about two years ago.
The same thing happened with another session where I drew a picture of what looked like an upside down bolw turned slightly sideways with lines drawn in front of it, and words that had come to mind like, “people, music, clapping”. The picture I drew indeed looked like the Hollywood Bowl.
The target WAS the Hollywood Bowl. SO something was deffinitely going on that I could not explain with conventional thinking, but at the same time that does not mean the acceptance of magical thinking either.
However, not every RV session one does ends with that kind of success. Many sessions are only marginally good, meaning that while some of the data is congruent with the actual target, much of it is not, or is TOTALLY off.
How to explaine that? I don’t know, but I do know that that is no reason to dismiss RV out of hand.
I would suggest that we keep our skepticism. It’s a good thing if practiced properly. By that I mean a decided difference between blatent closed mindedness and real skeptical thinking where one “remains open to the truth REGARDless of what the possible truth might be.” Even if it violate our most cherished beliefs. That takes a real maturity rarely found on public discussion boards.
So what IS the truth about Remote Viewing? I don’t know. But I imagine if we take all that energy we have expended by saying something is bullshit, dismissing it out of hand, and applying that energy in real honest research, our own personal explorations or that done in a scientific lab, we might be able to find out.
Robert
Robert, why is this double-posted here? This is the fourth time you’ve posted this particular “witness” on the SDMB–once here already (above), and then you’ve posted it twice in Great Debates so far, once (I’m assuming by accident) in its own thread, and once in the “official” Remote Viewing thread. You still aren’t giving us any facts about remote viewing–you’re still just saying “I believe in remote viewing!” And they’re all simply Copy and Pasted identical posts. This is called “cross-posting” and is not allowed. Please go back over to Great Debates for any further discussion of remote viewing.
Dex, not meaning to tell you your business or anything, but…you wanna think about locking this thread? I’m trying to reserve use of the Clue-by-Four[sup]R[/sup] for more deserving targets.
D D Goose:
You probably won’t be able to learn much about SRV ( a hybrid of CRV ) through an instruction manual. Click on the lesson tapes and work your way through them. Starting with tape number three, all tapes thereafter are real targets.
Courtney Brown gives you the feed back at the end of each lesson.
Have patience with yourself and LET yourself see if you can get any hits. Chances are yu will.
You will need Real Audio to play the tapes. You can probably download Real Audio free.
Good luck.
Robert
:rolleyes:
Robert, for absolutely the last time–the discussion on remote viewing IS NOT TAKING PLACE in this thread, okay? Here, I’ll spell it out for you. S-T-O-P P-O-S-T-I-N-G I-N T-H-I-S T-H-R-E-A-D. :rolleyes:
Go back over to Great Debates, my son–Glenn, your Fearless Leader, needs all the help he can get. The Forces of Reason, Logic, Science, and Rational Thinking have him surrounded and he is sinking fast. Go to him, my boy, go to him! Your Leader needs you, now more than ever! Hurry, hurry, before Dave the Electrician traps him in his deadly coils, and the Hawaiian Remote Viewers Guild is deprived of its Guiding Light–forever!!
[sub]and no, it’s not just a link to the Great Debates thread
go on, click it
hee[/sub]
OK, Duck, I am now closing this thread. The content has moved far from “comments on Staff Reports” to a debate on the validity of remote viewing, and is thus located in the GREAT DEBATES forum.
You can find it here, if you’re interested: Remote Viewing in Great Debates