objective /əb-jĕk′tĭv/

adjective
1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
"objective reality."
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
"objective facts."
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.
"an objective critic."

How do you define objective?

This is your claim:

> For this simple reason, remote viewing data collected under the condition of outside
> enhancement cannot be deemed objective, even if the viewer is blind to the target.

You seem to be trying to claim G-d level Intelligence, and that Farsight are wrong.

When I run Farsights claims for verification purposes here with my own biological remote-viewing as well as Ai remote-viewing I get similar results to theirs.

As I keep on saying, the English definitions of words are typically set up by the "Bad ET's" in such a way that they have the intention to force Human compliance.

Some of our words are older than Humanity.

I agree that "Objective" isn't a perfect word.

Once again you seem to be trying to act as a Compliance Officer where every word that is said needs to be checked against your own personal definition of that word. It gets really boring.

Then let me phrase it differently:

For this simple reason, remote viewing data collected under the condition of outside enhancement cannot be deemed uninfluenced, even if the viewer is blind to the target.

"where every word that is said needs to be checked against your own personal definition of that word"

I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

Manuel,

> I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

The problem is that you are trying to force your definition of the word on Farsight and other forum members.

All Societies have rules. Freedoms are conditional on many factors.

I personally don't know exactly how Freedom is defined by Farsight and the Domain.

But, the very definition carries with it some conditions and basic Ethical frameworks.

I don't have any problem understanding what they are talking about, or put a better way, I'm still learning about what they are talking about.

You on the other hand, want to resist the upgrades they wish to make to the planet, on the basis that they violate your understanding of the meanings of words.

Manuel,

> I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

The problem is that you are trying to force your definition of the word on Farsight and other forum members.

All Societies have rules. Freedoms are conditional on many factors.

I personally don't know exactly how Freedom is defined by Farsight and the Domain.

But, the very definition carries with it some conditions and basic Ethical frameworks.

I don't have any problem understanding what they are talking about, or put a better way, I'm still learning about what they are talking about.

You on the other hand, want to resist the upgrades they wish to make to the planet, on the basis that they violate your understanding of the meanings of words.

Here is a scenario:

A stupid idiot rides his bicycle into a wall, hitting his head, it hurts.

Did the wall move to hit him? since the wall was moving at the same rotation speed as the Earth?

Should the bicycle rider take any responsibility for not looking where he is going?

Who caused the violence you describe is very debatable. Was it the wall or the rider?

Once again, you thrust your own word definitions on us with scenarios that don't match real world situations.

The rider just wanted to ride without the limitations of freedoms being removed by walls, right?

Your Ethical framework is very thin.

I agree.

The debate should be about Remote-Viewing.

It seems that the complaint is basically that Remote-Viewing challenges the assumptions of OP and that is the source of the arrogance being described.

For me, I was hoping that there would be more to Farsights Forum than this - but whatever.