www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed [Archive]

Jackalgirl

29th March 2009, 02:24 AM

Seems a bit harsh, she may be attention seeking and time wasting, but she's not charging money or setting up a VfF healing clinic, is she really any worse than all the rest of the woos that believe ridiculous things?

By her own admission, she is diagnosing people. So she is, in fact, putting ideas into people's heads about their health that she has no business putting in there. Furthermore, when asked whether a failure of her test would change her mind about her supposed ability, she stated in so many words that no test whatsoever would ever change her mind. She's convinced she has super powers, and no amount of evidence will ever convince her otherwise. This is all from the first part of the moderated VisionFromFeeling thread.

Unless, of course, she changed her mind somewhere along the line further in the chain of posts that is the original VisionFromFeeling thread, that is. I do admit that I stopped reading the thread shortly after she made this statement. I feel pretty strongly about people using supposed super powers in a medical capacity (viz., it is wrong). If she has changed her mind, I apologize and would appreciate it if someone would point it out; on the other hand, if she had changed her mind, I doubt that UncaYimmy would have suggested a www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com domain.

lionking

29th March 2009, 02:36 AM

All you know about VVF is what she posts here and on her website. She's not Sylvia Brown. This website is bullying and the forum should have nothing to do with promoting it.

Ernie M

29th March 2009, 02:42 AM

I agree with the obsessed bit, not the needing help bit so much.

I think UncaYimmy did a good job on his StopVisionFromFeeling.com (http://www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com/) Web site. It is clear and concise, qualities which Anita's writing doesn't possess.

My impression is that UncaYimmy is very familiar with Anita, her claims, and her tactics. That is why UncaYimmy was able to produce the "Quick Links," to other Web sites. I'd say he and other JREF Forum members spent a lot of time trying to help Anita verify her claims to be able to proceed with the MDC, and all of their efforts, all of their help- yielded no results. If I spent all that time and effort for nothing, I'd feel burned.

So, I feel UncaYimmy is justified in producing his Web site about Anita, and is not obsessive to the point where it's a problem, leading to visits with a mental health professional.

Jonquill

29th March 2009, 02:46 AM

lionking

29th March 2009, 02:48 AM

I think UncaYimmy did a good job on his StopVisionFromFeeling.com (http://www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com/) Web site. It is clear and concise, qualities which Anita's writing doesn't possess.

My impression is that UncaYimmy is very familiar with Anita, her claims, and her tactics. That is why UncaYimmy was able to produce the "Quick Links," to other Web sites. I'd say he and other JREF Forum members spent a lot of time trying to help Anita verify her claims to be able to proceed with the MDC, and all of their efforts, all of their help- yielded no results. If I spent all that time and effort for nothing, I'd feel burned.

So, I feel UncaYimmy is justified in producing his Web site about Anita, and is not obsessive to the point where it's a problem, leading to visits with a mental health professional.
How are the objectives of the JREF furthered by promoting a website like this? VFF is most likely deluded, in my opinion. There is no evidence she is ripping people off like Browne or Geller. As I said, I believe this is an attempt to bully a member.

Ernie M

29th March 2009, 03:07 AM

How are the objectives of the JREF furthered by promoting a website like this? VFF is most likely deluded, in my opinion. There is no evidence she is ripping people off like Browne or Geller. As I said, I believe this is an attempt to bully a member.

Oh, this is hard to say, because in a way I agree with you.

I don't think the "objectives" of the JREF are necessarily furthered by "promoting" UncaYimmy's Web site. But to make the distinction, the disclaimer at the bottom of the Forum pages states, "Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors." While I can't speak for the JREF, I can say they are not "promoting" UncaYimmy's Web site, but by running the Forum, it gives him and others a platform to speak from.

Akhenaten

29th March 2009, 04:14 AM

How are the objectives of the JREF furthered by promoting a website like this? VFF is most likely deluded, in my opinion. There is no evidence she is ripping people off like Browne or Geller. As I said, I believe this is an attempt to bully a member.

I don't know if it's fair to say that the JREF is promoting UncYimmy's site. Many of us have used the forum to link to our own sites. It would be equally unfair to say that the JREF is promoting the sites linked in the advertisements that some people see here.

It seems to me that UncaYimmy is at least using his own resources to do what VfF has been using this forum to do. Can't complain about that.

One last thing. UncaYimmy has decided to run a counter-site to visionfromfeeling.com. The fact that the author of that site also happens to be a member of the JREF Forum does not confer immunity from this happening.

Cheers mate. No offence intended and I hope you know that I respect your opinion.

Dave

lionking

29th March 2009, 04:18 AM

Many of us have used the forum to link to our own sites.
Dave
I wouldn't have as many problems if it was a link in a sig line or something, but to start a thread about a website disparaging another member is going too far IMO.

Akhenaten

29th March 2009, 04:20 AM

I actually think that this is a bit like shooting an ant with an elephant gun. If a web site was started for every nut case on the internet, then there would not be enough bandwidth on the entire planet to contain it all.

Norm

I think we should make the bandwidth. It sounds like a useful service and it would be a great read. ;)

To be serious though, most of the fruit loops out there aren't worth the trouble, but some are. Sylvia Browne is an example that's been mentioned already. How many people would prefer that she'd been shut down before she got going?

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 04:27 AM

Seems a bit harsh, she may be attention seeking and time wasting, but she's not charging money or setting up a VfF healing clinic, is she really any worse than all the rest of the woos that believe ridiculous things?

Harsh...that's an interesting choice of words. She puts out her opinion, and I put out my opinion. She creates a website, and I create one in rebuttal. How is that harsh?

As for whether she is "worse" than other woos, I don't look at it as a competition.

Akhenaten

29th March 2009, 04:29 AM

I wouldn't have as many problems if it was a link in a sig line or something, but to start a thread about a website disparaging another member is going too far IMO.

Fair enough and thank you. I wouldn't feel as nervous posting here if I didn't agree with you at least in some degree.

Having said that, what's done is done, and I'm not ashamed to say that I support UncaYimmy.

If nothing else, I believe that the forum will benefit from a reduction in Noise™

Jonquill

29th March 2009, 04:56 AM

Harsh...that's an interesting choice of words. She puts out her opinion, and I put out my opinion. She creates a website, and I create one in rebuttal. How is that harsh?

If she had a StopUncaYimmy website then it would be fair to have one rebutting that, but her website is just all what she imagines about herself (even if brilliant skeptics like you do get a mention ;) ) and as far as I can see she's not doing anything illegal or immoral.

I just think it's a bit of overkill at the moment when her motives are unknown.

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 05:09 AM

If she had a StopUncaYimmy website then it would be fair to have one rebutting that, but her website is just all what she imagines about herself (even if brilliant skeptics like you do get a mention ;) ) and as far as I can see she's not doing anything illegal or immoral.

I just think it's a bit of overkill at the moment when her motives are unknown.

Still not seeing it. If she comes here and posts, I can rebut her. If she goes to the FACT meeting, they can rebut her. But if she creates a website, nobody is allowed to create a website to rebut her?

You know, it's not like I saw some teenage girl at Starbucks reading a book on astrology and decided to create a website to tell the world she's a kook. Anita, a 26 year old woman, is making a bunch of extraordinary claims on her website, on this website, and on other skeptic websites. She has contacted two separate skeptic groups, several professors, a mall manager, parks and recreation people, and local city officials about her claim. In response I created one website where those claims can be objectively examined.

I see nothing harsh about my conduct.

Darat

30th March 2009, 12:43 AM

As Admin:

I have removed posts discussing issues of moderation, as the Members who made those posts know such issues should be raised in the Forum Management section.

As we have said before the moderation of this Forum is concerned with what members do and post here. There have been very few exceptions to that and given that quite a few Members here have websites that are critical or supportive of people that other Members may not be as critical or as supportive of there is nothing exceptional in this instance.

We are not (as a Mod Team) going to start to determine if a particular Member's site is "up to standard" or not, the exception to that would be if linking to the site would breach the Membership Agreement.

Promoting a site. If a site is not a commercial site and is directly about a psychic/scam/ghost sightings/UFOs etc. then we have always allowed threads to be started about them, in effect "promoting" a site. For example RLS's "Stop" sites, What The Harm, Bad Science and so on.

Of course there is as slight niggle in this instance since "VisionFromFeeling" is a Member here so anyone posting here about VisionFromFeeling must do so within the constraints of their Membership Agreement.

And remember if you want to discuss the moderation or forum management issues please take it to the Forum Management section.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 01:25 AM

First of all, UncaYimmy thank you for setting up www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com! It is such a beautiful nice and pink site, and up to what's posted there today I don't disagree with any of it! So, way to go! :p I'm thinking of not posting there, because I might ruin it. But I'll be reading it very closely.
By her own admission, she is diagnosing people. So she is, in fact, putting ideas into people's heads about their health that she has no business putting in there. No no no... I am not diagnosing people. I have made it very clear right from the very start that I do not offer psychic readings to people. Having this experience of medical perceptions that I have, when I perceive things about the health of close family and friends I find careful ways of telling them about it, and they are used to it so there is no harm. And so far it's mostly been harmless things, like, "Hon, does your neck muscle hurt?", "Why, yes it does!"

I encounter plenty of perceptions of serious health problems in the public but I would never even consider approaching a person and letting them know. I let nature run its course, and my medical perceptions are not part of that nature. I do not express my medical perceptions outside of this carefully conducted investigation, and it should be very clear by now that I go through great lengths to ensure that no one in my investigation gets hurt.

And, thanks to UncaYimmy, who is brilliant, we have a way of conducting the study so that the volunteers whose health information is part of the study can remain anonymous. I will never even get to speak with them. And they can never find out about my answers.
Furthermore, when asked whether a failure of her test would change her mind about her supposed ability, she stated in so many words that no test whatsoever would ever change her mind. She's convinced she has super powers, and no amount of evidence will ever convince her otherwise. This is all from the first part of the moderated VisionFromFeeling thread.What I mean when I say that is that no matter what the investigation concludes about my medical perceptions, it will not change anything in that I get to keep the medical perceptions. I will continue to experience the perceptions in the exact same way, but perhaps, I will understand what they are. What ever this investigation concludes that they are, I will take to heart, and that is the main goal of this investigation.

I am not convinced that I have any powers or special ability. All I know is I've had correlating medical perception. And I am investigating that.
Unless, of course, she changed her mind somewhere along the line further in the chain of posts that is the original VisionFromFeeling thread, that is. I do admit that I stopped reading the thread shortly after she made this statement. I feel pretty strongly about people using supposed super powers in a medical capacity (viz., it is wrong). I haven't changed my mind, since you've misquoted me in the first place. Now listen carefully: I am headed toward a career within the medical field. I have worked three years in a nursing home with terminally ill residents. I am a terrific double-major undergraduate science student. There is a whole other life to me that none of you have ever seen, my professional life, to which I never mix any of my personal or perhaps unconventional spare-time interests such as this paranormal investigation that I am doing. I am tremendously responsible and professional in my career. I do not confuse my subjective medical perceptions with conventional science. Just take my word for that if you can, since you will never encounter a single concrete example of where I would have done otherwise.
If she has changed her mind, I apologize and would appreciate it if someone would point it out; on the other hand, if she had changed her mind, I doubt that UncaYimmy would have suggested a www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com domain. Thank you for apologizing. You are wrong about me.

I realize that my paranormal investigation might hurt my career, yet it is something I absolutely refuse, to think that I would have no right to explore my interesting experience of medical perceptions in a scientific manner. And that means involving Skeptics. I have every right to do so, and any career opportunity that I would lose because of my choice to share my fascinating investigation with others I think has shown to me to not possess the qualities and values that I personally stand for. I will not be made to choose away any aspect of my life.

(BTW, the steak episode was funny.)

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 01:36 AM

So far I don't mind UncaYimmy's site. :) It's quite charming.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 01:57 AM

It seems to me that UncaYimmy is at least using his own resources to do what VfF has been using this forum to do. I use the JREF Forums to progress in my paranormal investigation. Of course, it doesn't come across that way to some Skeptics. But that's why I'm here.
Harsh...that's an interesting choice of words. She puts out her opinion, and I put out my opinion. She creates a website, and I create one in rebuttal. How is that harsh? I've made a close inspection of UncaYimmy's www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com and as of what's posted today I find no reason to argue against it. UncaYimmy is expressing his thoughts and opinions and so far none of it has violated any rules of conduct that apply to the use of the internet. *Or even hurt my feelings.* I could not believe that the intentions of UncaYimmy with that website would be malevolent against me as a person, and I trust that his objectives with that site are exactly what he has said. For an objective inquiry into my unconventional claims. And, I do not mind it offering people a place to vent and to discuss their thoughts about me, provided no one crosses over to the overly negative. I do realize that unfortunately my claim is provocative, and I can not deny people of their thoughts and their feelings about it.

:confused: I might come back and say otherwise a few days from now.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 02:01 AM

confused: I might come back and say otherwise a few days from now.

You can always register on the site yourself and make your own comments.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 02:07 AM

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 03:48 AM

Love the site - I spent a few hours reading through the other threads and its quite apparent VisionFromFeeling is here for multiple reasons - none of them good (trolling JREF, promoting her own ability WHICH IS DANGEROUS because its the equivalent to offering medical advice without a license, etc.). If she had submitted to reasonable claims to testing then it would have been excessive - but over two threads shes done exactly the opposite.

lionking

30th March 2009, 03:53 AM

Hate the site.

Darat

30th March 2009, 04:28 AM

Folks remember comments (whether constructive or not) about the thread's topic i.e. the website is OK, even some discussion as to the motivation behind the site is OK - insulting one another is not.

Jonquill

30th March 2009, 04:30 AM

I suppose time will tell if the site is justified or not.

I thought Anita would be a bit miffed when she saw it, but maybe she just welcomes what she sees as extra attention.

I hope we eventually find out what her motives are or it will be like reading a dectective novel that is missing the last chapter. :)

plumjam

30th March 2009, 04:39 AM

For LightinDarkness and others.

There are others, such as myself, who agree with Lionking; and we all have a very valid reason for it. We do not like to see one individual (particularly a relatively polite and respectful individual) systematically piled-upon, ridiculed, verbally abused, and armchair-diagnosed as mentally ill... and for the culprits in this regard to try to disingenuously pass all this off as 'concern'.

Nor do we like to see forum members writing to that individual's University to draw attention to her purportedly problematical mental health. Neither do we like to see one of these bullying types touting here a website he has specifically created in order to 'objectively' investigate VFF, while simultaneously trying to recruit people to write what will no doubt be hit pieces on her to be published online.

If people want to investigate VFF's claims, fair enough. But if you're clearly someone who gets their online kicks by indulging in the above kinds of activity expect to get called on it.
If you want to investigate her claims and feel she's taking too long, fair enough. State that in a non-abusive manner and step away, rather than indulging yourself in the bully pit.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 04:51 AM

There are others, such as myself, who agree with Lionking; and we all have a very valid reason for it. We do not like to see one individual (particularly a relatively polite and respectful individual) systematically piled-upon, ridiculed, verbally abused, and armchair-diagnosed as mentally ill... and for the culprits in this regard to try to disingenuously pass all this off as 'concern'.

Besides the fact that your analysis is completely off base and simply wrong, it doesn't really matter - people are free to create websites to debunk woos just as the woos are free to create websites to promote their own powers. In fact this works in "VisionFromFeeling"s favor because some people will choose to perform the forum role of "valiant defender" and get support they would not otherwise get. In fact, its already in progress.

Claiming you can "see" peoples medical problems through a power is a danger to the public. This isn't someone who claims to speak to ghosts or do something else that doesn't hurt anyone except themselves. And yes, there are plenty of people who fall for this kind of woo and later die or get seriously injured:
http://whatstheharm.net

Nor do we like to see forum members writing to that individual's University to draw attention to her purportedly problematical mental health. Neither do we like to see one of these bullying types touting here a website he has specifically created in order to 'objectively' investigate VFF, while simultaneously trying to recruit people to write what will no doubt be hit pieces on her, to publish them online.

In this case, VFF has decided to reveal just about everything about herself in order to promote her own website and abilities. Things would be completely different if someone had looked up all this information and the person had not volunteered all of it. This person could have just come on and revealed nothing, the decision to self-promote was hers and hers alone. If someone chooses to promote themselves like this then all that information is fair game, and the university is free to ignore letters regarding her mental health.

Stop trying to turn this person into a victim and throw a pity party. Throwing out baseless accusations does you no good. The only bullies here are the people acting hysterical and trying to shut down someone else's freedom of speech. Don't like the website? Don't go to it. Its a perfectly valid venture and no amount of making things up is going to change that.

plumjam

30th March 2009, 05:08 AM

It doesn't really matter - people are free to create websites to debunk woos just as the woos are free to create websites to promote their own powers. In fact this works in "VisionFromFeeling"s favor because some people will choose to perform the forum role of "valiant defender" and get support they would not otherwise get. In fact, its already in progress.

Claiming you can "see" peoples medical problems through a power is a danger to the public. This isn't someone who claims to speak to ghosts or do something else that doesn't hurt anyone except themselves. And yes, there are plenty of people who fall for this kind of woo and later die or get seriously injured:
http://whatstheharm.net
If you have any evidence that Anita has intervened in anyone's life, in a way which has adversely affected that person's health, then please present it.
If you cannot do this then you'd be wise to admit that all you're doing is fearmongering. Fearmongering in order to create a base of justification for indulgence in personal attack.

In this case, VFF has decided to reveal just about everything about herself in order to promote her own website and abilities. This person could have just come on and revealed nothing, the decision to self-promote was hers and hers alone. If someone chooses to promote themselves like this then all that information is fair game,

It is fair game for investigation of claims, reasoned response, and civilised argument. It is not fair game for serial ridicule and bullying.

and the university is free to ignore letters regarding her mental health.
In the same way that if someone from this forum wrote letters to anyone of influence and importance in your own personal life then that person of influence and importance would be free to ignore letters making negative claims about your mental health.
But the fact that they'd be free to ignore them is no defence at all.
If it happened to you I'm sure you would not excuse it on such grounds.

Stop trying to turn this person into a victim and throw a pity party. Throwing out baseless accusations does you no good. The only bullies here are the people acting hysterical and trying to shut down someone else's freedom of speech.
You mention 'acting hysterical', and then 'shut down someone else's freedom of speech' all in the same sentence.
And you managed it, seemingly, while maintaining a straight face.

Don't like the website? Don't go to it. Its a perfectly valid venture and no amount of making things up is going to change that.
What did I make up?

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 05:38 AM

plumjam

30th March 2009, 05:50 AM

There you go again making things up. You want proof? Visit her own website, where it clearly shows she is engaged in "reading" people and telling them what she thinks is their medical problems. Don't think there are people dumb enough to take it seriously? You'd be wrong - again:
http://www.whatstheharm.net
Avoided the question, didn't you.
The question was whether you have any evidence that Anita has adversely affected the health of anyone at all.
You haven't any such evidence, so it's fearmongering then.

The only serial ridicule and bullying I'm seeing is coming from you, not anyone else.
Please explain in what way I am serially ridiculing and bullying anyone.
Seems that, for you, after hundreds of posts in which people ridicule and abuse Anita, for one or two posts to object to this counts as bullying.
You just don't like anyone standing up to you, do you.
No surprise there, considering what this type of situation attracts.

If I volunteered myself as having special powers which could harm people AND I publicly posted all the information about me through the promotion of my own website about said power then people would be free to use the information in whatever (legal) way they want. But wait, I don't - do I? Completely invalid comparision.
You have yet to establish any harm.
Whichever line of business you're in will involve people knowing your contact details, and probably those of your employer. Would the fact that you have furnished those people with your employer's contact details count as a moral justification for them writing to your employer in order to cast unwarranted and unwelcome aspersions about your mental health?
No, I didn't think so.

Did you bother to read what you wrote? You have the freedom to act hysterical about this by trying to transform VFF into a victim if you so choose to. Its sort of funny when you try - and completely fail - to find contradicting statements and then point out your failure.
You are not expressing yourself clearly. Try again.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 06:03 AM

Avoided the question, didn't you.
The question was whether you have any evidence that Anita has adversely affected the health of anyone at all.
You haven't any such evidence, so it's fearmongering then.

You completely avoided the evidence again, didn't you? Right in your face and just ignore it because it isn't what you want to Believe? Just more fear mongering by you that using someones information which THEY have put on their OWN website and PROMOTED in this forum is somehow going to lead to horrible things happening. I'm seeing a pattern - all these base accusations your throwing around are things your doing.

By the way, do you have any evidence that jumping into a tub filled with acid adversely impacts your health? Please provide evidence. Otherwise to make the claim that jumping into acid is harmful is fear mongering.

Please explain in what way I am serially ridiculing and bullying anyone.
Seems that, for you, after hundreds of posts in which people ridicule and abuse Anita, for one or two posts to object to this counts as bullying.
You just don't like anyone standing up to you, do you.
No surprise there, considering what this type of situation attracts.

Please show posts which ridicule and abused anyone other than your own - just because you make things up doesn't make it true.

You have yet to establish any harm.
Whichever line of business you're in will involve people knowing your contact details, and probably those of your employer. Would the fact that you have furnished those people with your employer's contact details count as a moral justification for them writing to your employer in order to cast unwarranted and unwelcome aspersions about your mental health?
No, I didn't think so.

Your denial of the facts does not make them not exist. Yep, if I claimed to have special powers which can harm people and I freely gave out my contact information in order to support said powers it would be perfectly normal for anyone to use it in whatever legal way they see fit. You thought wrong, as usual.

You are not expressing yourself clearly. Try again.

You have failed completely. Try again. Maybe this helpful check list can be of assistance since you don't seem to want to see the facts in front of you:

Instructions: To determine whether someone has a right to use your personal information in any legal way they see fit, check in the following boxes:

Has the person you are trying to make into a helpless victim:
[ ] Claimed to have a special paranormal power where they give people "readings" that tell them medical ailments without the use of medical instruments and the person is not a licensed medical professional.
[ ] Made a website for the promotion of this claim, and decided to put their contact information on said website.
[ ] Registered on a forum and repeatedly promoted the above website.

If you checked all three in the list above, THEN YES VIRGINIA, people have a right to use it in any legal way possible. If all 3 ARE NOT TRUE, then NO.

GeeMack

30th March 2009, 06:11 AM

How is Anita diagnosing people any different from your great aunt saying "You're looking a bit peeky Dear, I think you're coming down with whooping cough."

Claiming to be a doctor or something that you're not is one thing, some silly chook telling you their opinion of what your health is like is another.

My great aunt never actually considered herself a member of the medical profession, nor did she claim to be using some kind of super power to look at tissue inside bodies to make some kind of low level diagnosis of medical issues. And neither, I'd venture to guess, did your great aunt.

What is so unbelievably unacceptable about the claim of perceiving automatic and involuntary images of tissue when looking at a body? Heck, some most guys'll look at a woman and get automatic and involuntary images of what her surface looks like. ;) I just go deeper than that. :) (Note: It is not the same thing. I'm just joking. Besides, just in case someone is wondering - and I'm sure some of you are - I mostly look at the liver, heart, prostate and lungs in men. And *nothing else*. :D)

But I can, if I sense a health problem. You know how some people have aluminum hats to keep others from reading their thoughts telepathically. I bet I'll have people wearing aluminum underwear now. ;)

I hold great respect for people's integrity. I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information. It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

And your great aunt, I would certainly hope, didn't perpetuate a bold-faced lie about her ability, or lack thereof, to perceive people's medical conditions by simply giving them a look-over. She didn't say, on one hand, that she would like to diagnose people, as a health care professional, in a most professional manner, then a few days later do a 180 degree turn around and deny it...

No no no... I am not diagnosing people. I have made it very clear right from the very start that I do not offer psychic readings to people. Having this experience of medical perceptions that I have, when I perceive things about the health of close family and friends I find careful ways of telling them about it, and they are used to it so there is no harm. And so far it's mostly been harmless things, like, "Hon, does your neck muscle hurt?", "Why, yes it does!"

But then (probably) your great aunt, and mine, weren't mentally ill. I think we'd all agree that anyone with a mental illnesses that manifests itself in delusions and compulsive lying, if they are attempting to engage in medical practices at any level, should be considered dangerous.

plumjam

30th March 2009, 06:30 AM

You completely avoided the evidence again, didn't you? Right in your face and just ignore it because it isn't what you want to Believe? Just more fear mongering by you that using someones information which THEY have put on their OWN website and PROMOTED in this forum is somehow going to lead to horrible things happening. I'm seeing a pattern - all these base accusations your throwing around are things your doing.
I had no choice but to avoid the evidence, because you didn't provide any.
My request was for evidence of Anita adversely affecting anyone's health.
You are squirming now.

By the way, do you have any evidence that jumping into a tub filled with acid adversely impacts your health? Please provide evidence. Otherwise to make the claim that jumping into acid is harmful is fear mongering.
Yes, I have evidence for that. But it's too potentially distressing to link to here.
To go with your analogy, what you're doing is accusing Anita of either pushing or persuading people into acid baths. You have no evidence for this allegation.
You're fearmongering.

Please show posts which ridicule and abused anyone other than your own - just because you make things up doesn't make it true.
Try the original VFF thread, which after hundreds of such posts, had to be shut down by management due to the level of baseness those attacking Anita had resorted to.

Your denial of the facts does not make them not exist. Yep, if I claimed to have special powers which can harm people and I freely gave out my contact information in order to support said powers it would be perfectly normal for anyone to use it in whatever legal way they see fit. You thought wrong, as usual.

You have established no actual harm. When actual harm has been established then people can rightly go to the authorities; instead of cowardly letters to people in her personal life.

You have failed completely. Try again. Maybe this helpful check list can be of assistance since you don't seem to want to see the facts in front of you:

Instructions: To determine whether someone has a right to use your personal information in any legal way they see fit, check in the following boxes:

Has the person you are trying to make into a helpless victim:
[ ] Claimed to have a special paranormal power where you give people "readings" that tell them medical ailments when you are not qualified to make such diagnosis.
[ ] Made a website for the promotion of this claim, and decided to put your contact information on said website.
[ ] Registered on a forum and repeatedly promoted the above website.

If you checked all three in the list above, THEN YES VIRGINIA, people have a right to use it in any legal way possible. If all 3 ARE NOT TRUE, then NO.
Plucked these out of the air, didn't you.
If you really believe Anita has done anything seriously harmful or illegal to anyone then you should have the courage of your convictions and call the police. Go ahead, and report back.
If you don't do so, why would that be?
Lack of evidence?

desertgal

30th March 2009, 06:46 AM

By her own admission, she is diagnosing people. So she is, in fact, putting ideas into people's heads about their health that she has no business putting in there. Furthermore, when asked whether a failure of her test would change her mind about her supposed ability, she stated in so many words that no test whatsoever would ever change her mind. She's convinced she has super powers, and no amount of evidence will ever convince her otherwise. This is all from the first part of the moderated VisionFromFeeling thread.

Unless, of course, she changed her mind somewhere along the line further in the chain of posts that is the original VisionFromFeeling thread, that is. I do admit that I stopped reading the thread shortly after she made this statement. I feel pretty strongly about people using supposed super powers in a medical capacity (viz., it is wrong). If she has changed her mind, I apologize and would appreciate it if someone would point it out; on the other hand, if she had changed her mind, I doubt that UncaYimmy would have suggested a www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com domain.

You are not incorrect. No need to apologize.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 06:57 AM

I had no choice but to avoid the evidence, because you didn't provide any.
My request was for evidence of Anita adversely affecting anyone's health.
You are squirming now.

What another spectacular failure of a post from you. You get shown the facts and are in complete denial.

Would you please present your evidence that diagnosing people of medical problems without medical instruments and without a license is not harmful? Especially because doing that its called practicing medicine without a license and every medical board agrees its harmful. (http://www.chestjournal.org/content/106/2/329.2.full.pdf?ck=nck) I suppose you know so much more than all those medical boards though. They just make up these silly rules for nothing - I mean who needs a MD to tell you that you have cancer when someone can read you through their special powers?

Yes, I have evidence for that. But it's too potentially distressing to link to here.
To go with your analogy, what you're doing is accusing Anita of either pushing or persuading people into acid baths. You have no evidence for this allegation.
You're fearmongering.

Is fear mongering your word of the day? Its hilarious to watch you type it over and over without the faintest idea of knowing what it actually means. More baseless accusations and insults from you and 0 evidence yet again. Failure, failure, failure.

I want SPECIFIC evidence that jumping into a bath full of acid is harmful. Specific. If you fail to provide it, you are fear mongering by suggesting people shouldn't jump into acid vats. Isn't using your own completely wrong logic against you great?

Try the original VFF thread, which after hundreds of such posts, had to be shut down by management due to the level of baseness those attacking Anita had resorted to.

Oh look, more completely baseless accusations by you without evidence. I sense a pattern!

You have established no actual harm. When actual harm has been established then people can rightly go to the authorities; instead of cowardly letters to people in her personal life.

Right, because we need to have someone jump in a bathtub of acid first before we tell people they shouldn't do that.

Plucked these out of the air, didn't you.
If you really believe Anita has done anything seriously harmful or illegal to anyone then you should have the courage of your convictions and call the police. Go ahead, and report back.
If you don't do so, why would that be?
Lack of evidence?

I see you've failed again - is this a reading comprehension issue? Otherwise all 3 check boxes would be filled. My my, even making things simple for you isn't helping.

Its too bad the police weren't notified before so many people died of woo like this, which you keep ignoring because you are completely wrong and you know it:
http://www.whatstheharm.net.

How many people would like to have murdered by those practicing "alternative medicine" like this?
What's the harm in alternative medicine?

Complementary or alternative medicine works outside the evidence-based realm of science. This area includes alt-med stories that don't fit into any of our other categories. Read more about alternative medicine

Here are 276 people who were harmed by someone not thinking critically.

But I guess you are OK with the murder of 276 people because, you know, we should let the woos try out their "powers" on people and wait for someone dumb enough to take them seriously before stopping it. You would much prefer we wait for someone to jump into a bathtub of acid before determining if its harmful.

Now I have a life so you post back with your next failure and keep flailing about (as usual you will ignore all the evidence that proves you wrong). I'll debunk you later. Its almost too easy.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 07:02 AM

You are not incorrect. No need to apologize.

Although apparently we are supposed to wait until she diagnoses someone wrongly (previous thread shows - high chance of that) and they get harmed from it. Obviously until then we should just let her run about and diagnose people and wait for someone dumb enough to take her seriously.

/sarcasm

dbalsdon

30th March 2009, 07:03 AM

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Portals/21/VFFChalkboard.jpg

I just really dislike that image. I've just woken up, so maybe my sense of humour isn't functioning properly yet.

Sideroxylon

30th March 2009, 07:04 AM

She and her patently absurd claims have been given way too much attention already. Half the time I wonder why people play along with the idea of testing such fantasies/lies.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 07:10 AM

I think the site is overkill, given she doesn't have a media presence and isn't making millions or indeed, from what I can tell, anything. In my opinion you're giving too much attention to something that doesn't warrant it, where the same effort for something that is affecting thousands of people would have a more productive outcome (google results and such).

That said, objectively, it's a well-put together site, but I do hope you'll reconsider this sentence:

Far too many people like Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas.

If skepticism was about suppressing the expression of ideas, half-baked or not, I wouldn't want any part of it. The idea is to educate people who may be swayed by pseudoscience, not to censor those who express themselves and espouse ideas we don't agree with. Selling products is one thing, expressing ideas is quite another. Society should absolutely allow free expression of ideas, and society should also be free to debunk those ideas (or mock them, but that doesn't educate those who are attracted to the claims).

You've also dismissed her claims as 'half-baked' despite asserting that she hasn't had any testing. I suggest that by doing so, you're only 'preaching to the converted' with your site (i.e. skeptics), which is not particularly useful. An unbiased approach will always get better results.

Perhaps you would consider changing it to something like "Far too many people like Anita espouse their ideas without allowing critical appraisal or scientific evaluation".

desertgal

30th March 2009, 07:23 AM

Although apparently we are supposed to wait until she diagnoses someone wrongly (previous thread shows - high chance of that) and they get harmed from it. Obviously until then we should just let her run about and diagnose people and wait for someone dumb enough to take her seriously.

/sarcasm

What constitutes harm?

Let's say, oh, hypothetically, that Anita gives me her spiel about psychic medical diagnosis, and having never been wrong, and, since I believe in such things, I allow her to diagnose me. She tells me that I have a potentially fatal heart condition because the tissues around my heart are saturated with peanut oil-but I can completely reverse the condition by changing cooking oil. I trust her-she's never been wrong, after all-and I worry about it until I can get to my doctor, who, of course, looks at me as if I am completely insane.

Does worry count as harm? Does humiliation? Or does it not matter because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway? After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

Or, let's say, hypothetically, that I am not feeling well. Anita does the spiel, and I believe her. She tells me that I am not feeling well because the high blood pressure medication I am taking is all wrong, and I need to go to my doctor and get it changed. So, I do, and my doctor tells me that he doesn't see any signs that the medication is causing my discomfort. I insist that Anita is a health care professional, possibly has the special ability to see into my body at an atomic level, has never been incorrect, and I insist that she is right. Doctor shrugs. Changing my medication, at my insistence, isn't going to hurt me, so he does. But, here's the catch: the new medication costs more, and my insurance won't cover it. So, I have to do what I can to cover the additional cost, which causes stress and worry, etc.

Does stress count as harm? Or does it not matter because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway? After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

What if she misses something? Let's say Anita tells me that my reproductive system is "red or inflamed", and we both assume that it is because I am menstruating. In reality, though, I have a raging silent infection caused by pelvic inflammatory disease and it ultimately renders me sterile. I guess that's okay, though, because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway. After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and that she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

(Darat, these hypotheticals aren't intended as insults towards Anita. Simply trying to point out the potential for harm.)

tsig

30th March 2009, 07:47 AM

I wouldn't have as many problems if it was a link in a sig line or something, but to start a thread about a website disparaging another member is going too far IMO.

Since when is the truth disparaging. It may be unpleasant and offend some delicate sensibilities but that's life.

tsig

30th March 2009, 07:51 AM

All you know about VVF is what she posts here and on her website. She's not Sylvia Brown. This website is bullying and the forum should have nothing to do with promoting it.

UncaYimmy has spent more time than anyone else here working with VfF.

Protocols, PMs and other venues. I think his knowledge goes beyond just what you see here.

plumjam

30th March 2009, 08:05 AM

What another spectacular failure of a post from you. You get shown the facts and are in complete denial.

Would you please present your evidence that diagnosing people of medical problems without medical instruments and without a license is not harmful? Especially because doing that its called practicing medicine without a license and every medical board agrees its harmful. (http://www.chestjournal.org/content/106/2/329.2.full.pdf?ck=nck) I suppose you know so much more than all those medical boards though. They just make up these silly rules for nothing - I mean who needs a MD to tell you that you have cancer when someone can read you through their special powers?

Is fear mongering your word of the day? Its hilarious to watch you type it over and over without the faintest idea of knowing what it actually means. More baseless accusations and insults from you and 0 evidence yet again. Failure, failure, failure.

I want SPECIFIC evidence that jumping into a bath full of acid is harmful. Specific. If you fail to provide it, you are fear mongering by suggesting people shouldn't jump into acid vats. Isn't using your own completely wrong logic against you great?

Oh look, more completely baseless accusations by you without evidence. I sense a pattern!

Right, because we need to have someone jump in a bathtub of acid first before we tell people they shouldn't do that.

I see you've failed again - is this a reading comprehension issue? Otherwise all 3 check boxes would be filled. My my, even making things simple for you isn't helping.

Its too bad the police weren't notified before so many people died of woo like this, which you keep ignoring because you are completely wrong and you know it:
http://www.whatstheharm.net.

How many people would like to have murdered by those practicing "alternative medicine" like this?

But I guess you are OK with the murder of 276 people because, you know, we should let the woos try out their "powers" on people and wait for someone dumb enough to take them seriously before stopping it. You would much prefer we wait for someone to jump into a bathtub of acid before determining if its harmful.

Now I have a life so you post back with your next failure and keep flailing about (as usual you will ignore all the evidence that proves you wrong). I'll debunk you later. Its almost too easy.

Light, I wonder how old you are, because your style of argumentation is that of a child.
You have no evidence that Anita has ever done any actual harm to anyone, and this post of yours amounts to you trying to convince yourself that you've somehow managed to work around that.

Trying to associate Anita with people being thrown into baths of acid, and 276 "murders", is patently ridiculous; thereby pushing you into the category of "critical thinker" I'm happy not to waste my time and energy on.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 08:14 AM

You have no evidence that Anita has ever done any actual harm to anyone.

You have no evidence that she hasn't. Unsubstantiated, unverified, one sided anecdotes, remember?

Since we know of no evidence that she has caused harm, the potential for harm ceases to exist. That's just logical. :rolleyes:

Ashles

30th March 2009, 08:29 AM

I would post over on the other site but I question what it is that we are stopping Anita from doing.
Running proper tests on herself? Never going to happen.
Objectively examining her own claims? Never going to happen.
Look at any areas of her own claims that lend themselves to clear, objective testing? Never going to happen.

All Anita wants to do is talk about herself. That's all. That is the central purpose to this claim.
We have tried ignoring her claim - she was forced to bump her own threads with posts that contained no new information. That was a bit of a low point for Anita.

In the absence of any real tests I suggest we try ignoring her harder.

Any claim she makes that describes what she is intending to do, any half-formulated test, any preliminary results... I intend to ignore.
This claim is dead in the water.
I will only respond to any actual proper test in which skeptics have been involved and which have been reported in a way that is robust and not- open to personal interpretation.

Anything else is just attention seeking behaviour by Anita.

I'm not aware she is currently dispensing medical advice. I don't think she is stupid enough to try to do so now.
However, if she is currently dispensing anything that even might be interpreted as medical advice to anyone then I will certainly actively seek to stop that behaviour. As it would be illegal and, as we all know, she is so dedicated to not breaking the law.

This whole claim is boring now. There will be the odd half-hearted test which will allow Anita to interpret results as she wishes, just to keep generating something to talk about, but this is all pretty much over now.

If a real test ever happens let me know.

ETA: I will post on the other site even if only to say hello and that, while I think more discussion of (and another website about)this silly claim is exactly what Anita wants, I feel an alternative place to post about this claim without the moderation of the JREF is useful for anyone who wishes to use it and should be supported to that extent. It may well be overkill but it's UncaYimmy's time and his right to offer such an outlet for discussion. Those who don't supprt it should not bother with it.

Cuddles

30th March 2009, 08:30 AM

I think the site is overkill, given she doesn't have a media presence and isn't making millions or indeed, from what I can tell, anything. In my opinion you're giving too much attention to something that doesn't warrant it, where the same effort for something that is affecting thousands of people would have a more productive outcome (google results and such).

This. As already noted, the fact that Anita is a member of the forum is irrelevant, this site is no different in principle from other sites such as RSLancaster's "StopX" sites and many others around the internet. However, those sites target people that are actually known by others. Anita is known by a few people who read a couple of skeptical forums. That's it. What exactly are you going to achieve with this new website? There aren't masses flocking to throw their money at her. She hasn't even asked anyone for any money. She says she's done readings for a few family members and friends, but she doesn't force random readings on people, advertise, or doing anything likely to bring herself to the attention of anyone not specifically looking for her.

Is there the potential for her to cause harm? Certainly. In time she might become the next Sylvia Browne, or even just another two-bit street fortune teller. But she isn't at the moment, and I honestly don't see any signs of her becoming such. All this Stop site does is bring more attention to her, and as far as I can tell that's pretty much all she wants at the moment. While there is an argument for getting in early before she turns into Sylvia, I think if you get in too early you only help her get there faster.

As Teek says, there are so many things that this kind of effort could make a real difference to, so it seems a shame to see it go to waste on someone who really isn't worth it.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 08:54 AM

plumjam

30th March 2009, 08:56 AM

You have no evidence that she hasn't. Unsubstantiated, unverified, one sided anecdotes, remember?
That's not how it's supposed to work in a civilised society. Ever hear of 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
Until good evidence to the contrary is provided, the default assumption is that people have committed no wrongdoing.
Unless, of course, you happen to be Josef Stalin.

Since we know of no evidence that she has caused harm, the potential for harm ceases to exist. That's just logical. :rolleyes:
Another disconnect of yours.
We all have the potential to do harm. Therefore I guess we should, as a society, wallow in mutual distrust, paranoia, and obsessive accusation.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 09:05 AM

That's not how it's supposed to work in a civilised society. Ever hear of 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
Until good evidence to the contrary is provided, the default assumption is that people have committed no wrongdoing.

The presumption of innocence refers to legal, as opposed to factual, guilt. It is a legal instrument. It positions that any person legally charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not dictate public or personal judgment, and everyone is allowed an individual interpretation of "proof", and an individual determination of innocence or guilt.

It is also not unreasonable to consider that there are two sides to every story - especially when you are only hearing one of them, and what you are hearing defies credulity, is unsubstantiated, and possibly unethical.

Another disconnect of yours.
We all have the potential to do harm. Therefore I guess we should, as a society, wallow in mutual distrust, paranoia, and obsessive accusation.

We all are not telling people that we have the ability to see inside their bodies to an atomic level, or that we can diagnose their health by doing so. You have to admit, performing a "psychic medical diagnosis" does increase the potential for doing harm.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 09:06 AM

As for your comments about the content of the site, thanks. If you want to discuss them, you can register on the site and post there.

Maybe I'm a little cranky, but I don't care to be lectured on how my time could be spent being "more productive." When I'm in a better mood, I'll track you down over in the "Cheese Appreciation" thread you started here at JREF, and we can discuss how we best use our time.

But you do make a good point. I really should wait until she's well established in the media and has a large clientele and bankroll. In fact I should wait until after she has used her detection skills in some missing child cases. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go close the barn door and track down my horses.

If you can't take polite and constructive criticism, I suggest not posting a thread in a public internet forum. I'm very sorry that you do seem to want to not hear anything you don't agree with. That's not too healthy in my opinion.

As for the very strange reference to the cheese appreciation thread, you realise that was my first thread here? Like, years ago? And that it took about five minutes of my time? And is in the Community section? And is banter? I'm not sure what the benefit is of playing "my website, which you're not allowed to comment on except to praise, is better than your cheese appreciation thread", but I'm sorry that you can't see further than that and perhaps gauge the value of my opinions by the work I do for skepticism instead.

Cleon

30th March 2009, 09:10 AM

If you can't take polite and constructive criticism, I suggest not posting a thread in a public internet forum. I'm very sorry that you do seem to want to not hear anything you don't agree with. That's not too healthy in my opinion.

As for the very strange reference to the cheese appreciation thread, you realise that was my first thread here? Like, years ago? And that it took about five minutes of my time? And is in the Community section? And is banter? I'm not sure what the benefit is of playing "my website, which you're not allowed to comment on except to praise, is better than your cheese appreciation thread", but I'm sorry that you can't see further than that and perhaps gauge the value of my opinions by the work I do for skepticism instead.

Maybe he's a little cranky, and doesn't care to be lectured on your opinion!

Ashles

30th March 2009, 09:12 AM

I assume this thread is about to be moderated as well, as the VFF2 thread was just moderated (while I was posting) and a post I was posting that was very similar to tkingdoll, UncaYimmy's and Desertgal's posts here was deleted.

ETA: It concerned the irony of people posting on internet message boards to crticise others for wasting their time posting on internet message boards criticising others.

I think everyone should accept that everyone else's time is theirs to do with as they wish.
The "It's not a productive use of your time" argument is fairly redundant in this context.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 09:18 AM

Maybe he's a little cranky, and doesn't care to be lectured on your opinion!

Again, in that case, don't start a thread in a public forum. Perhaps he's a little cranky because this thread didn't turn out to be unanimous in praise. Who knows. My experience, however, tells me that if several people are saying the same thing, there might be something in it. There might not be, of course, but it's always worth listening to feedback whether it's positive or negative.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 09:26 AM

The "It's not a productive use of your time" argument is fairly redundant in this context.

I never said that though, I said that there would be a more productive outcome from different targets. There would be. What is the website going to achieve?

The world outside this forum hasn't heard of, and doesn't care about, Vision from Feeling, so the outcome can never be productive.

It's not a productive use of my time to play videogames, but I spend my spare time doing it anyway. However, if I posted about my playing of videogames as a way to achieve certain objectives, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to point out that I could either reach those objectives another way, or that the people I hope to benefit from my objectives would be better served with a different set of objectives. If that happened, I may say "thanks for your feedback, but I'm happy with this" or I may think "hmm is that right? I do want to do something about this specific issue, is my strategy the right one?".

It was meant to be constructive. I specifically stated that the site was well-constructed, and I offered a suggestion for alternative text where the existing sentence could alienate visitors. I should have realised that even constructive criticism might not be well met, though, the site does proclaim on the homepage that the author is "brilliant".

Cleon

30th March 2009, 09:30 AM

Again, in that case, don't start a thread in a public forum. Perhaps he's a little cranky because this thread didn't turn out to be unanimous in praise. Who knows. My experience, however, tells me that if several people are saying the same thing, there might be something in it. There might not be, of course, but it's always worth listening to feedback whether it's positive or negative.

I think my comment was taken a wee bit more seriously than I intended it to be.

grunion

30th March 2009, 09:33 AM

I think it would help if you stated her claim, in her own words, on the front of the site. I know it may be hard to get a simple statement but otherwise how can you take a survey about your opinion about the validity of the claim if you don't know exactly what the claim is?

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 09:34 AM

I think my comment was taken a wee bit more seriously than I intended it to be.

Oh no, I knew you were being 'winky' but I wanted to address it seriously for the benefit of those reading who may not know you and I have a banter relationship. :p

Cuddles

30th March 2009, 09:35 AM

I should have realised that even constructive criticism might not be well met, though, the site does proclaim on the homepage that the author is "brilliant".

In all fairness to UncaYimmy, I believe that is a little joke. Anita initially praised UncaYimmy as being a brilliant skeptic because she thought he was agreeing with her, but later changed her mind when he explained that he was doing nothing of the sort.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 09:41 AM

In all fairness to UncaYimmy, I believe that is a little joke. Anita initially praised UncaYimmy as being a brilliant skeptic because she thought he was agreeing with her, but later changed her mind when he explained that he was doing nothing of the sort.

In that case I retract my last sentence and apologise for taking it at face value, but (constructive as ever) would like to point out that without that particular anecdote in hand, others may do the same.

Moochie

30th March 2009, 09:49 AM

Well, I finally decided to pull the trigger and put www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com (http://www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com) on-line. I am looking for a few volunteer bloggers to write some articles to put up. They can be copies of things you have written here or new material.

I also created a discussion forum should folks decide to take their VFF discussions somewhere else seeing how one thread here was closed and another moved to moderated status. It looks like VFF 2 is probably headed that direction as well.

It seems that Anita Ikonen (http://www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com)is just not going to let her claims drop. If anything she has recently sought even more attention for her unfounded claims. My website will be there ready to examine them objectively.

Bugger! I wish I had the talent to throw together a website that quickly.

Nicely done, UncaYimmy! And very proactive. I'll be sure to visit regularly.

M.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 10:22 AM

If you can't take polite and constructive criticism, I suggest not posting a thread in a public internet forum. I'm very sorry that you do seem to want to not hear anything you don't agree with. That's not too healthy in my opinion.

How cute! Now I get a lecture about posting on the Internet.

I thanked you for your specific comments about the content. However, I am not going to discuss specific content here. I'll read what people have to say, but if they want to discuss it, this is not the proper place.

I rebutted your comments about the effectiveness of the site by pointing out it does little good to close the barn door after the horses are gone. The time to make a StopThisWoo website is before the woo needs stopping.

Your comments about how I should be using my time are another story. I find it obnoxious to be lectured about how you think I could better use my time. Do you really need me to elaborate on this?

plumjam

30th March 2009, 10:32 AM

I find it obnoxious to be lectured about how you think I could better use my time. Do you really need me to elaborate on this?
Supremely ironic, given that you've spent the last couple of months trying to convince Anita to stop doing something she likes to do in her own free time.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 10:35 AM

The world outside this forum hasn't heard of, and doesn't care about, Vision from Feeling, so the outcome can never be productive.

* She has posted on other skeptic websites besides this one.
* She has had an application pending at IIG West for 20 months and has been noted in several of their newsletters.
* She has been to several meetings of a local skeptics group and has posted on Meetup.com.
* She has phoned and/or written the owners of a local mall about running a "study" on their premises.
* She has phoned and.or written local park officials about running a "study" in a park.
* She has been in touch with city officials about doing a "study" on the city sidewalks.
* She has contacted several professors at her school.
* She has contacted one professor about using students in her "study."
* She has read over 100 people.
* Her website guestbook has entries from other woos including www.thedoctorandthepsychic.com

And as far as this board goes, threads related to her claim keep getting moderated (the first one was closed). Meanwhile, she keeps writing more and more on her website.

Moochie

30th March 2009, 10:38 AM

Besides the fact that your analysis is completely off base and simply wrong, it doesn't really matter - people are free to create websites to debunk woos just as the woos are free to create websites to promote their own powers. In fact this works in "VisionFromFeeling"s favor because some people will choose to perform the forum role of "valiant defender" and get support they would not otherwise get. In fact, its already in progress.

Claiming you can "see" peoples medical problems through a power is a danger to the public. This isn't someone who claims to speak to ghosts or do something else that doesn't hurt anyone except themselves. And yes, there are plenty of people who fall for this kind of woo and later die or get seriously injured:
http://whatstheharm.net

In this case, VFF has decided to reveal just about everything about herself in order to promote her own website and abilities. Things would be completely different if someone had looked up all this information and the person had not volunteered all of it. This person could have just come on and revealed nothing, the decision to self-promote was hers and hers alone. If someone chooses to promote themselves like this then all that information is fair game, and the university is free to ignore letters regarding her mental health.

Stop trying to turn this person into a victim and throw a pity party. Throwing out baseless accusations does you no good. The only bullies here are the people acting hysterical and trying to shut down someone else's freedom of speech. Don't like the website? Don't go to it. Its a perfectly valid venture and no amount of making things up is going to change that.

Entirely agree. If it were the case that VfF didn't have that preposterous site of hers, then I'd have reservations about UY's action, but as things stand, his site is a very valid response to the woo.

I still don't know what VfF's intentions are, but her site, as it stands, looks like a perfect precursor to a career in woo.

M.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 10:43 AM

Your comments about how I should be using my time are another story. I find it obnoxious to be lectured about how you think I could better use my time. Do you really need me to elaborate on this?

Sigh, I don't think you've read my subsequent posts. I was pretty sure I'd addressed this.

If you think my few short paragraphs are a lecture, what would you call what you're doing to Anita?

You are allowed to start an entire site criticising and attempting to silence someone you disagree with. To do so is worthwhile and will help society by 'stopping woo before it starts'.
I am not allowed to offer an opinion or criticise the site on this forum. To do so is lecturing.

Hmm.

Quick question: why do the threads here keep getting moderated?

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 10:43 AM

In all fairness to UncaYimmy, I believe that is a little joke. Anita initially praised UncaYimmy as being a brilliant skeptic because she thought he was agreeing with her, but later changed her mind when he explained that he was doing nothing of the sort.

That is correct.

And the word "eventually" is a little joke about Anita's use of that word.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 11:04 AM

plumjam, thank you. :)

Claiming you can "see" peoples medical problems through a power is a danger to the public. This isn't someone who claims to speak to ghosts or do something else that doesn't hurt anyone except themselves. And yes, there are plenty of people who fall for this kind of woo and later die or get seriously injured:
http://whatstheharm.netI make the claim, yes, while also emphasizing that the claim has not been proven yet and that of course perhaps it never will if the investigation will conclude against it. However there is no danger to the public. I never diagnose a person other than close family or friends, and I take great care even then. I am quite responsible with how I express, and mostly not express, what I perceive about people's health, knowing that regardless of how vivid, realistic, or even seemingly accurate they may seem I must always assume the possibility that they are not, as well as abide by the conduct that I know is appropriate for someone who experiences what I do. I do not diagnose people. The persons who will volunteer in my study and test will fill in anonymous health questionnaires, and will never find out what I perceived about them. There is no danger involved, and I go through great lengths to ensure just that. Thank you for expressing this concern, although it does not apply to me in my case. :)

In this case, VFF has decided to reveal just about everything about herself in order to promote her own website and abilities. Things would be completely different if someone had looked up all this information and the person had not volunteered all of it. This person could have just come on and revealed nothing, the decision to self-promote was hers and hers alone. If someone chooses to promote themselves like this then all that information is fair game, and the university is free to ignore letters regarding her mental health.I chose to make my entire investigation public, because in order to investigate a paranormal claim it would end up involving Skeptics and draw some attention to it anyway. And I thought that a paranormal investigation, when done thoroughly, could be very interesting to many. There are not many honest attempts made by paranormal claimants who decide to put their claimed experience to the test to answer questions or to allow others insight into their experience, and their main objective appears to most of the time be "the million dollar prize" or other selfish greed. My objective is a scientific inquiry into my experience of correlating medical perceptions. My website serves as an open and interactive documentary into the experience as a paranormal claimant working toward the final conclusion about my medical perceptions.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 11:05 AM

Sigh, I don't think you've read my subsequent posts. I was pretty sure I'd addressed this.

If you think my few short paragraphs are a lecture, what would you call what you're doing to Anita?

You are allowed to start an entire site criticising and attempting to silence someone you disagree with. To do so is worthwhile and will help society by 'stopping woo before it starts'.
I am not allowed to offer an opinion or criticise the site on this forum. To do so is lecturing.

Hmm.

Please tell me how my website could possibly "silence" her or anyone else. And considering that I have a link back to her site *and* I publicly invited her to register on the site, why are you even making such an implication?

As for stopping woo "before" it starts, it has already started. It has become very clear that she is reaching out to new audiences and introducing new psychic claims. She's begun connecting with other woos. Her website has probably tripled in size since she started here. That's not including the tens of thousands of words she has posted in several threads. When a recent thread of hers got moderated and slowed way down, she started a new thread to keep things going. She's the one going to a local skeptics group and claiming that their tests did not "falsify" her claim.

I never said your comments about my website were lecturing. I said your comments about my personal choice over the use of my time is lecturing. You, of course, are welcome to make those comments just as I am welcome to call it lecturing. Stop being so dramatic.

Akhenaten

30th March 2009, 11:15 AM

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Portals/21/VFFChalkboard.jpg

I just really dislike that image. I've just woken up, so maybe my sense of humour isn't functioning properly yet.

Mine is and I think it's funny that you would link to an image that you dislike on a site where it will have far more views. :D

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 11:19 AM

Please tell me how my website could possibly "silence" her or anyone else. And considering that I have a link back to her site *and* I publicly invited her to register on the site, why are you even making such an implication?

As for stopping woo "before" it starts, it has already started. It has become very clear that she is reaching out to new audiences and introducing new psychic claims. She's begun connecting with other woos. Her website has probably tripled in size since she started here. That's not including the tens of thousands of words she has posted in several threads. When a recent thread of hers got moderated and slowed way down, she started a new thread to keep things going. She's the one going to a local skeptics group and claiming that their tests did not "falsify" her claim.

I never said your comments about my website were lecturing. I said your comments about my personal choice over the use of my time is lecturing. You, of course, are welcome to make those comments just as I am welcome to call it lecturing. Stop being so dramatic.

What an odd reply. A little perspective, perhaps? I've posted a couple of comments, you've made an entire site to 'stop' someone you don't agree with (although apparently, stopping them is not the same as silencing them, and this sentence from your site "Far too many people like Anita Ikonen are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas." in no way suggests you would like her to not be allowed to voice her ideas, as that would be silencing her when you merely intend to stop her) and I'm apparently the dramatic one.

If you're claiming your site cannot possibly stop her, what is the objective, please?

As for "stopping woo before it starts", that was your claim.

The time to make a StopThisWoo website is before the woo needs stopping.

Also, you didn't answer my question about why the other threads became moderated.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 11:32 AM

If you have any evidence that Anita has intervened in anyone's life, in a way which has adversely affected that person's health, then please present it.
If you cannot do this then you'd be wise to admit that all you're doing is fearmongering. Fearmongering in order to create a base of justification for indulgence in personal attack. Heavens, how right you are.
There you go again making things up. You want proof? Visit her own website, where it clearly shows she is engaged in "reading" people and telling them what she thinks is their medical problems. Don't think there are people dumb enough to take it seriously? The persons I've read on my MedicalPerceptions Page (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) are exclusively close friends and Skeptics of the local Skeptics Group. Please read more closely to avoid making future unfounded negative accusations against me. I think you'll be surprised at how carefully and responsibly I am conducting my investigation. :)
The only serial ridicule and bullying I'm seeing is coming from you, not anyone else. Hah! This is such a beautiful example of how silly some Forum Skeptics are! And I know that everyone reading this thread, who isn't a silly Forum Skeptic themselves, will see this. :)
If I volunteered myself as having special powers which could harm people AND I publicly posted all the information about me through the promotion of my own website about said power then people would be free to use the information in whatever (legal) way they want. But wait, I don't - do I? Completely invalid comparision. But that is not what plumjam (and I) are objecting against. Please learn to read more carefully, because a good Skeptic is supposed to have exquisite reading skill. :)
Your denial of the facts does not make them not exist. Yep, if I claimed to have special powers which can harm people and I freely gave out my contact information in order to support said powers it would be perfectly normal for anyone to use it in whatever legal way they see fit. You thought wrong, as usual.LightinDarkness, I am a Chemistry major at college, and often at times I have access to some very seriously dangerous chemicals for our chemistry experiments, but I have always made myself aware of the potential harms, and not once have I been responsible for causing injury to others in the lab or placing others at risk. In fact I am the one going around the lab urging other students to wear gloves or to pour carefully. :)
Claimed to have a special paranormal power where they give people "readings" that tell them medical ailments without the use of medical instruments and the person is not a licensed medical professional.I claim to experience correlating medical perceptions, however I do not tell people what I perceive about their health. I am carefully investigating this in ways that ensure no harm to anyone who is part of the investigations. :)
Made a website for the promotion of this claim, and decided to put your contact information on said website. The website is an open documentary about my experience as a paranormal claimant. It is not to promote *my psychic powers*, and it clearly states that all it is about is to find out what the medical perceptions are. The only contact information I have provided on my website is an e-mail address, that isn't even in my own name (brightstar).
Registered on a forum and repeatedly promoted the above website. I am here on the JREF Forum to involve Skeptics in the investigation. I thought that was what a paranormal claimant is meant to do. :confused:
Would you please present your evidence that diagnosing people of medical problems without medical instruments and without a license is not harmful? Again, I have been in a chemistry lab with access to concentrated Hydrochloric acid (otherwise known as stomach acid) with the potential to dissolve human flesh and there have been plenty of people around, yet I have never had the impulse to throw the acid on a person. Oh, I've also been around knives. And ran with scissors. I am a responsible adult and professional career woman and will be dealing with plenty of potentially hazardous material in my line of work, yet there is no reason to suspect me of being not responsible. The main reason I am going toward a career in the medical field is because I love to take care of people. Your concerns are unfounded in my case. :)

Its too bad the police weren't notified before so many people died of woo like this, which you keep ignoring because you are completely wrong and you know itAnd again, I will be dealing with plenty of harmful chemicals as well as radiation in my professional career but there is no implication that validates suspicion of a tendency for me to cause harm to others. Oh, and there are knives in my kitchen, and a very hot curling iron with which I sometimes burn my forehead. Oh, and I've ran with scissors. :)
How many people would like to have murdered by those practicing "alternative medicine" like this? Yes Honeybunches, but I don't practice medical perceptions to people. I am just investigating it. :)
But I guess you are OK with the murder of 276 people because, you know, we should let the woos try out their "powers" on people and wait for someone dumb enough to take them seriously before stopping it. You would much prefer we wait for someone to jump into a bathtub of acid before determining if its harmful. Just because I possess a potentially harmful thing doesn't mean that I am the kind of person who will cause harm by it. There are so many Chemists in the world, none of whom cause harm to others with the chemicals. Chemists have access to potentially very harmful material that others don't, and yes I have in my hands a potentially harmful experience of medical perceptions that others don't, but it's not about what you have. We all have potential weapons at home, or could make some. It's about who we are and how responsible and careful we are with what we have.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 11:33 AM

If you're claiming your site cannot possibly stop her, what is the objective, please?

The same as it is at StopSylvia - to establish facts over fiction. I doubt Robert Lancaster really expects that his site will ever fully "stop" or silence Sylvia Browne, but it has allowed people the opportunity to take proven facts and contradictions into consideration, as opposed to her unproven spin.

There's no harm in that, surely?

(Sorry, Unca, don't mean to step on your toes.)

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 11:46 AM

I just really dislike that image. I've just woken up, so maybe my sense of humour isn't functioning properly yet.
http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Portals/21/VFFChalkboard.jpg
No! I love that image!

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 11:48 AM

What an odd reply. A little perspective, perhaps? I've posted a couple of comments, you've made an entire site to 'stop' someone you don't agree with (although apparently, stopping them is not the same as silencing them, and this sentence from your site "Far too many people like Anita Ikonen are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas." in no way suggests you would like her to not be allowed to voice her ideas, as that would be silencing her when you merely intend to stop her) and I'm apparently the dramatic one.

Please do not quote me out of context. My site reads, "Regardless, her extraordinary claims should be addressed by critical thinkers. Far too many people like Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas [unchecked]. This site will serve to examine her claims with the impartial light of science."

I omitted the word unchecked when I first wrote it but have since corrected my omission.

If you're claiming your site cannot possibly stop her, what is the objective, please?
I hope to stop her from spreading pseudoscience and misinformation unchecked. I hope to stop her from turning her abilities into a fraudulent business like this fraud (http://www.janmeryl.com/) who is doing what Anita claims to be able to do.

As for "stopping woo before it starts", that was your claim.
Please don't twist my words again. I said the time to create a "stop" site is before the woo needs stopping. That is NOT the same thing as stopping woo before it starts. Lots of people are into woo, but that doesn't mean they need a "stop" site.

As Moochie pointed out, if she was just yacking here about her abilities, there would be nothing that needs stopping. That's not the case.

Also, you didn't answer my question about why the other threads became moderated.
If you want to discuss moderation issues, take it up in Forum Management. I am not going to guess why they are moderating her threads nor do I believe it is relevant.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 12:03 PM

The same as it is at StopSylvia - to establish facts over fiction. I doubt Robert Lancaster really expects that his site will ever fully "stop" or silence Sylvia Browne, but it has allowed people the opportunity to take proven facts and contradictions into consideration, as opposed to her unproven spin.

There's no harm in that, surely?

I don't see any harm in it, no (unless you want to make the argument that it could be perceived as affiliated with JREF, but a simple disclaimer solves that), but I also don't think it's comparable with StopSylvia, in objective or approach. Robert's sites are not written for skeptics, as this seems to be.

Could you define "people" as per your quote above, as they relate to this new site? One of the main differences between Robert's efforts and this is Robert is very clear about who the site is aimed at and who those two individuals, Sylvia and Kaz, harm. The former, it's viewers of Montel, the families of people like Shawn Hornbeck, the people who give money for her readings or shows, those who buy her books, etc. The latter, it's those who attend her talks and donate money, the families of 911 victims, the viewers of the news shows and readers of newspapers which cover her story. There is demonstrable, tangible harm in the actions of those two people, backed up with testimony from victims. Is that also the case here?

plumjam

30th March 2009, 12:13 PM

If you want to discuss moderation issues, take it up in Forum Management. I am not going to guess why they are moderating her threads nor do I believe it is relevant.

Since Yimmy either has me on ignore, or doesn't and simply won't respond, I think I'll have to play to the gallery instead.
Our dear Unca doesn't want to answer this question because he's well aware what the answer is and that it doesn't reflect well upon himself.
The VFF threads have had to be closed/moderated due to the unusually large number of unnecessary personal attacks directed towards the relatively polite and respectful Anita.

From the start Dear Unca has been the guiding light to a band of seriously unpleasant types who apparently cannot bear the prospect of someone perceiving the world differently to themselves.
But they needn't worry anymore.
Now that Unca has unleashed his website on an unsuspecting World, this group can rest assured that VisionFromFeeling will indeed be Stopped.com, and that we can hand on the reins to future generations with a happy heart.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, Jim.

tsig

30th March 2009, 12:28 PM

Since Yimmy either has me on ignore, or doesn't and simply won't respond, I think I'll have to play to the gallery instead.
Our dear Unca doesn't want to answer this question because he's well aware what the answer is and that it doesn't reflect well upon himself.
The VFF threads have had to be closed/moderated due to the unusually large number of unnecessary personal attacks directed towards the relatively polite and respectful Anita.

From the start Dear Unca has been the guiding light to a band of seriously unpleasant types who apparently cannot bear the prospect of someone perceiving the world differently to themselves.
But they needn't worry anymore.
Now that Unca has unleashed his website on an unsuspecting World, this group can rest assured that VisionFromFeeling will indeed be Stopped.com, and that we can hand on the reins to future generations with a happy heart.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, Jim.

You're wrong. I argued with him because i thought he was too easy on her.

Ashles

30th March 2009, 12:28 PM

Why doesn't everyone who wants to argue about this just take the argument over to www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com (http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com)

It's a website set up expressly for such discussion.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 12:31 PM

* She has posted on other skeptic websites besides this one.

I don't believe she should be stopped from doing that.

* She has had an application pending at IIG West for 20 months and has been noted in several of their newsletters.

Excellent, such applications are to be encouraged. This shows that she is at least willing to open a dialogue about testing. It also shows that she has come to the attention of skeptics, which we already know. However, I don't believe the IIG newsletter reaches the general public.

* She has been to several meetings of a local skeptics group and has posted on Meetup.com.

Good. I hope she continues to communicate with and socialise with skeptics. I can't see that as anything but a good thing. Far better than not talking to skeptics at all, or only going to woo meetups.

* She has phoned and/or written the owners of a local mall about running a "study" on their premises.

I'd need more information about this - what was their response, what sort of study was it, with what sort of controls, have skeptics been invited to participate, where will the results be published, etc? In spirit, a study is a good thing. Of course we're all aware of the pitfalls but a counter-letter to the same mall could easily address any concerns about bias. It's easy enough to point out the potential bad PR arising from an unscientific study associated with commercial premises.

* She has phoned and.or written local park officials about running a "study" in a park.

As above.

* She has been in touch with city officials about doing a "study" on the city sidewalks.

Depending on the nature of the study, she may not need permission for that (you wouldn't in the UK, I believe, but I'm sure the USA varies from state-to-state), and if so then she should be free to conduct non-evasive studies in public if others are allowed to do so. If not, as above.

* She has contacted several professors at her school.

One hopes you aren't suggesting she should be stopped from contacting professors at her school. If anything, they will help debunk her claims, not reinforce them. Do you think many academics will take her claims seriously?

* She has contacted one professor about using students in her "study."

What was his reply? Why should she be stopped from using willing volunteers in her study if others are allowed to do so? It's common practice in parapsychology. If her study doesn't pass the ethics committee she won't be allowed to do it. Other than that, see the comments about parks etc.

* She has read over 100 people.

What were their responses? Did any of them fail to seek medical treatment as a result of the reading? Have you got testimonies from any of them?

* Her website guestbook has entries from other woos including www.thedoctorandthepsychic.com

Should she be stopped from having a website guestbook, or should the other woos be stopped from posting there?

As for the readings, applications for studies etc, what evidence do you have for those other than her say-so?

I genuinely wish you the best in your endeavours, it's very well-made site and skeptical activism is to be commended, I just simply disagree with your choice of target. I think her claims and actions are disproportionate to the response and I can't help but wonder if you're actually giving her more credibility by doing this - it makes her look bigger than she actually is. You've put her up there with Sylvia Browne, one of the most successful and beloved woos of all time.

But, I'm just one voice. I do have a lot of experience in communicating skepticism (no, I don't mean posting on this forum ;)) but if you're absolutely sure this is the way to go about tackling what you perceive as an issue, then I'm glad to see you stick to your guns.

plumjam

30th March 2009, 12:36 PM

You're wrong. I argued with him because i thought he was too easy on her.

In which case you'd better quickly go and check whether the domain name www.KidnapVisionFromFeeling.com is still available.

Ernie M

30th March 2009, 01:08 PM

Akhenaten

30th March 2009, 01:09 PM

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Portals/21/VFFChalkboard.jpg
No! I love that image!

:) I know you well enough that I knew you would! I'll bet UncaYimmy knew you'd take it well too.

Cheers

desertgal

30th March 2009, 01:16 PM

I don't see any harm in it, no (unless you want to make the argument that it could be perceived as affiliated with JREF, but a simple disclaimer solves that), but I also don't think it's comparable with StopSylvia, in objective or approach. Robert's sites are not written for skeptics, as this seems to be.

The site is two days old. The direction it will evolve in remains to be seen. And I was under the impression that Robert's site is written for both skeptics and non skeptics.

Could you define "people" as per your quote above, as they relate to this new site?

The site is two days old. I cannot predict the future demographics of visitors. Depends on where Anita decides to spew her half baked ideas.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 01:57 PM

You're wrong. I argued with him because i thought he was too easy on her.

You were among several who, for lack of a better term, believed I was going too easy on her. When I felt that the original VFF thread was becoming ineffective, I started the moderated Interview with Vision From Feeling (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131343)thread. I, along with the moderators, were accused by a number of people of giving her special treatment and a place to hide.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 02:06 PM

In the absence of any real tests I suggest we try ignoring her harder.

Good plan. She (and her hypocritical pal) simply aren't worth further attention. So long, Anita. I can only hope others here follow the suggestion.

ETA: I will post on the other site even if only to say hello and that...I feel an alternative place to post about this claim without the moderation of the JREF is useful for anyone who wishes to use it and should be supported to that extent. It may well be overkill but it's UncaYimmy's time and his right to offer such an outlet for discussion. Those who don't supprt it should not bother with it.

Agreed.

William Smith

30th March 2009, 02:29 PM

Isn't a lot of this thread mainly the old "I resent you for actually doing something instead of just sitting in front of the keyboard!" schtick? No?

One has to start somewhere, right?

Kudos UncaYimmy.

Perhaps we can learn from your example, avoid the mistakes (which does not imply there have been any yet) and improve them for future endeavours.

Jeff Corey

30th March 2009, 02:34 PM

Where's the discussion forum on that site? is it 'shout'?

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 02:47 PM

Where's the discussion forum on that site? is it 'shout'?

Hit Discussion in the menu. Right now there's just one forum with three threads. Didn't really think we needed to break it out into more. Feel free to start a thread.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 03:09 PM

Isn't a lot of this thread mainly the old "I resent you for actually doing something instead of just sitting in front of the keyboard!" schtick? No?

.

I assume that's not aimed at me, because it would be funny if it was (and wrong, given what I do).

One has to start somewhere, right?

This is interesting. Are you saying that to you, this is the launch of UncaYimmy as a skeptical personality? A famous debunker? A Robert Lancaster figure? Start what, exactly?

If Anita is the 'victim' of a personal ego project, then something is very wrong. One does not start a crusade against someone who appears to be mentally ill (indeed if her claim of a synaesthesia diganosis is true, that's a major indicator of autism. Either way, she's no Sylvia Browne, surely you can see that).

I cannot, from any of the threads, see any indication that she is a deliberate fraud, but UncaYimmy must believe that she is a deliberate fraud to have started the site. I'm interested in seeing the evidence for that, or at least the posts which indicate she is fraudulent rather than delusional.

William Smith

30th March 2009, 03:15 PM

...
If Anita is the 'victim' of a personal ego project, then something is very wrong. One does not start a crusade against someone who appears to be mentally ill (indeed if her claim of a synaesthesia diganosis is true, that's a major indicator of autism. Either way, she's no Sylvia Browne, surely you can see that).

I cannot, from any of the threads, see any indication that she is a deliberate fraud, but UncaYimmy must believe that she is a deliberate fraud to have started the site. I'm interested in seeing the evidence for that, or at least the posts which indicate she is fraudulent rather than delusional.

That's where this part of the post comes into play:

...
Perhaps we can learn from your example, avoid the mistakes (which does not imply there have been any yet) and improve them for future endeavours.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 04:27 PM

If Anita is the 'victim' of a personal ego project, then something is very wrong. One does not start a crusade against someone who appears to be mentally ill (indeed if her claim of a synaesthesia diganosis is true, that's a major indicator of autism. Either way, she's no Sylvia Browne, surely you can see that).

I cannot, from any of the threads, see any indication that she is a deliberate fraud, but UncaYimmy must believe that she is a deliberate fraud to have started the site. I'm interested in seeing the evidence for that, or at least the posts which indicate she is fraudulent rather than delusional.

First, have you read the several thousand posts here in all of the threads? Have you at least read the moderated interview thread in its entirety? How about her website in its entirety? The front page of my site has all the relevant links. You seem to be making your arguments with inadequate research, so I encourage you to read up on the subject. Or perhaps you kept up all along and just chose not to post anything until now. Based on the above comment, I find that unlikely.

Second, why must I believe her to be a deliberate fraud in order to start my site? Once again I direct you to what it says on the front page of my site:
Some of us believe she is delusional while others believe she is a deliberate fraud. Still others think she is simply misguided and naive (you can register your opinion below). Regardless, her extraordinary claims should be addressed by critical thinkers. Far too many people like Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas unchecked. This site will serve to examine her claims with the impartial light of science.

I really don't understand what your problem is. Apparently it's not a waste of my time to respond to the tens of thousands of words VFF has written on this forum. Apparently it's okay for me to start the moderated thread and interview her. Apparently it's okay for me and others to comment here on things she writes on her website.

But for some reason you think it's inappropriate to start my own website and write my comments there. Apparently it's wrong to invite others to do the same. Or, as you say, it's just overkill. Apparently the JREF forums give the world just the right amount of the VFF debate in the perfect context.

At this point I think I have spent more time defending my right to make the site than I have actually working on the site. You can put that on my list of mistakes, GzuzKryzt. If I had it to do over again, I would have gotten more done on the site by myself and sent PMs to ask for assistance as needed. Then I would have just announced it in an existing VFF thread or stuck it in my signature rather than starting a new thread and attracting all sorts of Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

tkingdoll

30th March 2009, 04:40 PM

For curiosity's sake: did you discuss the idea with anyone before building the site?

As for your motive, if you believe her to be delusional rather than fraudulent then I find your actions morally indefensible.

tsig

30th March 2009, 04:44 PM

plumjam

30th March 2009, 05:05 PM

Dear Unca Yimmy,
which is it? You believe she's fraudulent or delusional?
If fraudulent you need some evidence.
And, as TK says, if delusional then all those hours constructing your site were just you doing what? Pretty much ridiculing a handicapped person in the street.. except the latter requires much less foresight and hard work than what you gallantly managed.

lionking

30th March 2009, 05:14 PM

I agree completely:

"Those who say a thing can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing them" (unknown)

I'm sure people were chanting that as they picked up their pitchforks and headed for the witch burning.

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 05:33 PM

As for your motive, if you believe her to be delusional rather than fraudulent then I find your actions morally indefensible.

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

paximperium

30th March 2009, 05:48 PM

I'm sure people were chanting that as they picked up their pitchforks and headed for the witch burning.
And of course that is exactly what's happening...oh wait, not even close.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 05:57 PM

I should have realised that even constructive criticism might not be well met, though, the site does proclaim on the homepage that the author is "brilliant". As a clarification, "UncaYimmy is a brilliant skeptic!" is a quote of what I've said. And I still say it. He designed a way to ensure that volunteers remain anonymous in the study. I love the use of that quote on his website. It exemplifies a lot. :)
In all fairness to UncaYimmy, I believe that is a little joke. Anita initially praised UncaYimmy as being a brilliant skeptic because she thought he was agreeing with her, but later changed her mind when he explained that he was doing nothing of the sort. No you've misunderstood why I said that in the first place. And you don't seem to know that I still call him a brilliant skeptic. It wasn't because he was agreeing with me, it was because he designed a way to ensure that volunteers remain anonymous in the investigation.
I find it obnoxious to be lectured about how you think I could better use my time. Do you really need me to elaborate on this?
Supremely ironic, given that you've spent the last couple of months trying to convince Anita to stop doing something she likes to do in her own free time. Oh if only I had the wits of plumjam, my dealings with the JREF Forum Skeptics would be much more pleasant! :faint:

* She has read over 100 people. The vast majority of which has never found out about what I perceived.
Meanwhile, she keeps writing more and more on her website. Jim! I post progress and updates on my investigation! Don't make it sound bad! You people were nagging for ages for me to post the survey notes, for instance, so I did. And I wanted to present a very thorough detailed description of the local March Skeptics meeting, so don't fuss! :mad:

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 06:04 PM

Entirely agree. If it were the case that VfF didn't have that preposterous site of hers, then I'd have reservations about UY's action, but as things stand, his site is a very valid response to the woo. My website posts a comprehensive and up-to-date source of the material I gather in my investigation. My website is quite necessary since I wish to document the progress of the investigation publicly for those who are interested in how a paranormal investigation might go about. And in case you didn't notice, so far I like UncaYimmy's website. :)
I still don't know what VfF's intentions are, but her site, as it stands, looks like a perfect precursor to a career in woo. My career will be in conventional Physics. And I swear on all four of Maxwell's equations. :halo:

Ashles

30th March 2009, 06:12 PM

plumjam

30th March 2009, 06:20 PM

Physics and medicine and optics and... well whatever is being discussed at the time.

Any particular field of any particular discipline you've got your eye on? Or are you just looking to apply for a job in.... general sciencey stuff?

What does that have to do with anything?
Oh, that's right - nothing.
Except for your recurrent desire to have a go at her. No surprise there, seeing as you were always part of the bully crowd.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 06:36 PM

And the word "eventually" is a little joke about Anita's use of that word. And I think that is particularly funny too. :) If I find anything that I am personally offended by on UncaYimmy's site, I will voice my opinions, and strongly. :)
Her website has probably tripled in size since she started here. And that's because there's more progress to report about. Oh, so now progress is wrong? :confused:
She's the one going to a local skeptics group and claiming that their tests did not "falsify" her claim. It didn't falsify the claim.
I hope to stop her from spreading pseudoscience and misinformation unchecked. I hope to stop her from turning her abilities into a fraudulent businessI have no intention of spreading pseudoscience, I am a science student. It is just that my experience is unconventional and sounds like pseudoscience when I describe the way I experience it.
like this fraud (http://www.janmeryl.com/) who is doing what Anita claims to be able to do. Or this (http://brentenergywork.com/SERVICES.htm) ... $1100 for a full-body scan! I could perform one of those in 20 minutes! If I worked for a full 8 hour day, for 40 hours a week, for an entire year, I would make...

$3300 an hour,
$26400 a day,
$132,000 a week,
$528,000 a month,
$6,336,000 a year!

Once when we had a guy come over to our house to do tiles he charged more by the hour than what a doctor of medicine makes, I jokingly said that I would quit college and call mom and tell her I'm going to do tiles. And a guy who drives a bulldozer earns $100 an hour so I said the same. But I'm still in college, money doesn't tempt me away from what I love to do for my career [conventional science]. Not that I won't be making a nice bit of money with what I do [as a Medical Physics researcher]. ;)

I want all of you to trust me when I say, that even if I could *get away with* taking such money as above, I am not tempted. I am disgusted. :D

Dear Skeptics, I am your good Claimant. :)

Uncayimmy

30th March 2009, 06:49 PM

The vast majority of which has never found out about what I perceived.
This is a good example of why I created the site. You say you've never been wrong in your readings. I asked you how many readings. You said 100. Now you say that the majority of them don't know they were read, which means you don't know if you were right.

But this really isn't the thread to discuss that particular issue. I only offer it up as an example of things that will be discussed on my site

Jim! I post progress and updates on my investigation! Don't make it sound bad! You people were nagging for ages for me to post the survey notes, for instance, so I did. And I wanted to present a very thorough detailed description of the local March Skeptics meeting, so don't fuss! :mad:

If "Meanwhile, she keeps writing more and more on her website" makes you look bad, then I don't know what to say. My point was that you do more than just post here, and now I do as well. You can write all you want on your site.

Jeff Corey

30th March 2009, 06:55 PM

[QUOTE=VisionFromFeeling;4568280..Oh if only I had the wits of plumjam, my dealings with the JREF Forum Skeptics would be much more pleasant!...[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you do. We were wondering where they were.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 07:12 PM

The VFF threads have had to be closed/moderated due to the unusually large number of unnecessary personal attacks directed towards the relatively polite and respectful Anita.:cry1 And I thought the whole world was against me.
Excellent, such applications are to be encouraged. This shows that she is at least willing to open a dialogue about testing. It also shows that she has come to the attention of skeptics, which we already know. However, I don't believe the IIG newsletter reaches the general public.Let me settle anyone's concerns about me receiving too much publicity with my webpage by saying that during the 20 months it's been up I can count the number of e-mails from random visitors with the fingers of one hand.
or only going to woo meetups.I don't go to woo meetups.
I'd need more information about this - what was their response, what sort of study was it, with what sort of controls, have skeptics been invited to participate, where will the results be published, etc? All of this information is available at my website www.visionfromfeeling.com. I post tons of detailed information about the progress of planning and conducting my study there. The Mall simply said no.

Please begin here, testprotocol.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html). Test protocol negotiations with the IIG ran to a hault when I realized that I hadn't experienced the test conditions that would be required in order to know whether I could claim to perform under those conditions. Every single currently standing question about the IIG test protocol is presented at the bottom of that page. Please read it!

The study is explained very thoroughly at study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html). The study is for me to experience the claimed medical perceptions more in order to form a more specific claim for a test, and to try out various test conditions. The study procedure is gradually changed toward a test procedure.

I have definitely invited Skeptics to attend. In fact I am insisting on it. :) I see none other more reliable to participate in it. The results will be published on my website, and probably discussed here on the JREF Forums. I would also hope for some of the participants of the study to post their version of the study as well.

My website is not too hard to read, and it really explains a lot about the investigation I am doing. Please read. :)
Depending on the nature of the study, she may not need permission for that (you wouldn't in the UK, I believe, but I'm sure the USA varies from state-to-state), and if so then she should be free to conduct non-evasive studies in public if others are allowed to do so. I made sure to carefully check with the officials of the city and am glad I did since otherwise I wouldn't have known that I am not allowed to bring a sign without specific approval and might have done that. Yes the study can take place in the public street, at least in the city I checked with. :)

As for the professor I contacted at my school about involving some of her students in my study she suggested that I read up on how such research projects are done before embarking on it. I think I'll be successful at employing local Skeptics instead after all.

* She has read over 100 people.
What were their responses? Did any of them fail to seek medical treatment as a result of the reading? Have you got testimonies from any of them?I have perceived medical information from more than a 100 people, but have expressed those perceptions to only a handful. No one has failed to seek medical treatment as a result of my readings.

Thank you for inquiring into my investigation, tkingdoll, and please do see my webpage www.visionfromfeeling.com as it will answer many of the questions you have about it and more. :)

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 07:26 PM

Two questions for Anita, also known as VisionFromFeeling:

• Do you/did you, like to watch CSI: Crime Scene Investigation ("Vegas")?

• If so, when did you start/stop watching the CSI "Vegas" series? For example, did you start watching it during the first season, and stop watching it after the third season?

Anita, if you don't find the questions too personal, would you mind answering them in this thread?
(I don't consider this a third question, but I'd like to request you post your answers here.)

I will make a follow-up post explaining why I'm asking these questions, and try to tie-in how I feel it pertains to this thread, your Web site (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/), and UncaYimmy's Web site (http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/).I have only watched very few episodes of CSI and most of them were the Vegas ones which in fact are my favorites of the different ones out there since I like its cast the most. :) But to be honest with you all... you know how CSI has two stories taking place at the same time in each episode, I always get them mixed up and get all confused about the story. :D It's funny, I'm a *dumb blonde* about many simple and everyday things, but when it comes to my coursework I never fail. :)

I've only seen so few episodes and I was never really following it. These are definitely not personal questions. But they seem so tremendously irrelevant.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 07:32 PM

In which case you'd better quickly go and check whether the domain name www.KidnapVisionFromFeeling.com is still available.
I just reported this sad Plumjam favorite ploy of insinuating that tsig would consider harm to VFF. And should I report all the posts made that insinuate that I would consider harm to persons in whom I perceive medical information?

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 07:50 PM

My career will be in conventional Physics.
Physics and medicine and optics and... well whatever is being discussed at the time.

Any particular field of any particular discipline you've got your eye on? Or are you just looking to apply for a job in.... general sciencey stuff? As an undergraduate I am studying a B.S. Chemistry, a B.S. Physics Optical Science, as much Electrical Engineering as I can fit in. Then I hope to do graduate studies in Optical Physics and Engineering and also Histology (the study of human tissue structure) until finally a Ph.D. in Medical Physics. So it is all those things combined, Ashles.

Jeff Corey

30th March 2009, 08:05 PM

I sincerely hope you successfully achieve all that. If you do, my Vision from Thinking predicts you will feel a lot differently than you do now about your claims.

tsig

30th March 2009, 08:26 PM

I'm sure people were chanting that as they picked up their pitchforks and headed for the witch burning.

Actually no, I first heard it while working at Callaway nuclear power plant. I believe the reactor used atoms not witches.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 08:37 PM

Light, I wonder how old you are, because your style of argumentation is that of a child.

Whats this, more wild and baseless accusations which completely ignores the evidence and shows that you haven't the fainest idea of what you are talking about? How surprising. You are on the run. You've been debunked and are now flailing about trying to shield yourself from cold hard reality.

You have no evidence that Anita has ever done any actual harm to anyone, and this post of yours amounts to you trying to convince yourself that you've somehow managed to work around that.

Your failure to understand four, no actually 5 links demonstrating how harm could come from this just shows your state of utter and complete denial.

Trying to associate Anita with people being thrown into baths of acid, and 276 "murders", is patently ridiculous; thereby pushing you into the category of "critical thinker" I'm happy not to waste my time and energy on.

Whats that? You have no evidence? You can't counter my metaphors that shows exactly why this is harmful? You have no evidence that contradicts mine? How surprising. You have failed. You lose in your attempt to play valiant protector of the woos. Freedom of speech always beats out tyrannical and hysterical people like you :) Now welcome to the ignore list along with the other defeated trolls.

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 08:44 PM

Whats that? You have no evidence? You can't counter my metaphors that shows exactly why this is harmful? You have no evidence that contradicts mine? How surprising. You have failed. You lose.
Light, I wonder how old you are, because your style of argumentation is that of a child. plumjam's seconded.

Jeff Corey

30th March 2009, 08:49 PM

Yes, you did get his wits. Please return them immediately.

LightinDarkness

30th March 2009, 08:50 PM

plumjam's seconded.

Thanks for the compliment - I'd be highly offended if someone who claims to have mystical powers thought highly of me. It would mean something was going terribly wrong. That you continue to engage in such childish antics like the one above just further demonstrates the point. :)

lionking

30th March 2009, 08:56 PM

Now welcome to the ignore list along with the other defeated trolls.

Yeah, way to go. Put those who disagree with you on ignore. Tres skeptical.

Jeff Corey

30th March 2009, 08:58 PM

C'est vrai. Watching the freakshow is amusing,

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 09:22 PM

I invited LightinDarkness to join me in a live online chatroom. I've done that with UncaYimmy a couple of times and it's always much more productive for both of us than just posting here. LightinDarkness kindly declined by thinking that I was up to something.

Does anyone want to take me up on the offer? If anyone has Skype, or wants to go through the free download, that'd be nice too. :) Then we can post our entire conversation here for everyone. Communication in this way is so much more quick and goes all sorts of places. Anyone? :D

... Jeff...? My best buddy? What do you say? :p
Suddenly they all left! :scared:

TSR

30th March 2009, 09:55 PM

... but when it comes to my coursework I never fail. :)

/
Well, if we just ignore that one "F", that is.

VfF's methodology in a nut...shell.
/

VisionFromFeeling

30th March 2009, 09:59 PM

TSR

30th March 2009, 10:53 PM

I did not fail that course, I refused to attend and therefore did not take the exams because the professor was very negative toward some of the students. That F says nothing about me as a student nor my skills in the course. It just says that I won't be treated that way. :mad:
/
It says that you're making excuses for not passing the class, when the Uni has very clear processes in place which would have allowed you to withdraw from the class without penalty.

And it's odd that neither you nor any other member of the class reported this behaviour, which would surely have been against Uni policy.

No, it's not odd, on second thought, since your excuse would appear to have all of the validity of your refusal to follow throught on the pill test once you had agreed to all of the conditions and made someone else take the time, trouble and expense to set it up for you.
/

Ernie M

30th March 2009, 11:21 PM

I have only watched very few episodes of CSI and most of them were the Vegas ones which in fact are my favorites of the different ones out there since I like its cast the most. :) But to be honest with you all... you know how CSI has two stories taking place at the same time in each episode, I always get them mixed up and get all confused about the story. :D It's funny, I'm a *dumb blonde* about many simple and everyday things, but when it comes to my coursework I never fail. :)

I've only seen so few episodes and I was never really following it. These are definitely not personal questions. But they seem so tremendously irrelevant.

Hi Anita,

Thank you for answering my questions.

You claim to have many abilities based on a “combination of two unusual skills,” which are supposedly 1) enhanced feeling and 2) synesthesia. Since you have so many claims which revolve around those skills, I am only focusing on one at this time.

Note: I make no insinuation or implication that you saw the following episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, or have borrowed anything from it. I am merely making an observation between something said by the CSI character, “Ellie Brass,” and something written on your Web site.

Quote from the character “Ellie” on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, “Ellie” episode:
Well, you see the thing with me is, I’m mind over matter. I can imagine a hamburger, and I’m full.

Quote from your Web site (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/), “How it Works” tab > “Different types of perceptions” > paragraph four:
I sense information about foods. I can taste a food just by looking at it, which is great fun. When a friend of mine eats ice-cream I ask if I can watch him eat it. I turn away and only look at the side of his neck and do not see when he eats it or what type of flavors, and I can actually feel the cold, the texture, the sweet, the taste, through him. Almost as if it were me eating it. I get the experience without the calories.

How this pertains to UncaYimmy’s OP:
In UncaYimmy’s OP he mentioned you don’t seem to want to drop your claims, and are perhaps seeking more attention for “unfounded” claims. As a personal observation, I was pointing out the similarity between a claim on your Web site, and something that was said on a CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode. The Apple definition of “unfounded” states, “having no foundation or basis in fact.” And, since you haven’t proven you can taste the actual flavor of a particular ice cream eaten by a friend of yours (through paranormal means), I would say this an unfounded claim, or in other words, an anecdotal contrivance.

How this pertains to your Web site:
You have so many claims of your “skills” on your Web site, but that is what many of them remain- just claims. You started “correspondence” with The Independent Investigation Group (IIG) back in July of 2007, and on their Web site they state your “abilities seem to change with each contact.” You haven’t been successful at achieving a media presence to meet the criteria in order to participate in a JREF preliminary test. You met with members of the Winston Salem local skeptics group, but their assistance doesn’t seem to have brought you any closer to taking the JREF preliminary test. My understanding is, that this was not through any fault on their side.

How this pertains to UncaYimmy’s Web site (http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/):
While UncaYimmy hasn’t specifically mentioned your ice-cream perceiving claim, he does however list much of the help you have received from various sources that have worked with you, to determine if you do, or do not, possess any paranormal powers.

Anita, you called the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation questions I posed to you as “irrelevant,” and “Irrelevance at its best,” but all I was interested in was knowing if you liked to watch CSI, and to get an idea if you might have seen the “Ellie” episode. Again, I’m not insinuating or implicating that you saw that episode or “borrowed” the concept about food and any resulting perception(s) of food. I was merely pointing out the similarity between something an actor said on CSI, and something on your Web site.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 12:12 AM

I did not see that episode, and all descriptions I offer about my perceptions are entirely based on my own life experiences and are not borrowed from anywhere else.

My paranormal claim that I am investigating is the perception of health information that correlates with the actual health of persons. I am not investigating any of my other unusual experiences.

I describe many aspects of my experience on my website, such as perceiving synesthesia-like color-association to the letters of the chemical elements, the purpose of which is to present some background about the way I process information otherwise and how that might relate to the topic of my paranormal investigation.

My claim has remained consistent throughout my correspondence with the IIG. If they choose to read these JREF Forums where other Forum Skeptics discuss my other claimed experiences - which I have no intention of studying - then they may do so. My claim, as it has been in my correspondence with the IIG, has been the medical perceptions and nothing else.

I am currently not interested in applying with the JREF for a paranormal test. I would first pass preliminary testing on my own as well as arrange for the required media presence before beginning correspondence with the JREF about having a test.

The reason I came to a hault with the IIG test protocol negotiations is because what my everyday experience is with the medical perceptions did not take place under test conditions. I am now conducting a study whose objectives are to find out more about my claimed experience and what test conditions I can agree to. Thanks to this study I can already add to the test protocol draft that I will see the persons from behind rather than front-view, and I expect to make plenty more such progress as I am given the opportunity to experience my claim more.

I haven't been working towards acchieving the media presence requirement at this stage. The test with the IIG does not require media presence (but would probably generate some media interest anyway), and also I am not doing this for publicity so there is no need at this stage for me to arrange media presence for myself and my paranormal investigation and claim.

My most recent meeting with the local Skeptics did in fact bring me much closer toward arriving at a final test with the IIG. I learned plenty of things from the two readings that I did, and can implement that knowledge into future study design and the IIG test protocol.

None of the complications that may arise during my paranormal investigation are the fault of anyone who is kind enough to participate in my investigation, including the local Skeptics, JREF Forum Skeptics, or IIG. :)

Darat

31st March 2009, 12:50 AM

This is not a thread for discussing general claims made for or against VisionFromFeeling (there are other currently active threads for such discussions), it is for discussing the website that has been set-up. Keep to that topic or don't post in this thread.

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 12:54 AM

VisionFromFeeling, thanks for responding to my questions: however, I was posing them to UncaYimmy, and I wanted him to be answer those questions given he's the one who made the accusations. Other than that, all I have to say to you, and I mean this with the best will in the world, is that professional mental health advice is often the best medicine.

To UncaYimmy (and others who support the site):

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely crystal clear why I am actively opposing it rather than simply ignoring it. When starting what you called a 'stopthiswoo' site, you have to be absolutely sure that the harm you are going to cause to the subject of the site, who is a real live person with real feelings, emotions (and access to lawyers), is completely outweighed by the harm that person is doing to society.

I see no evidence for that here whatsoever.

Further, I had no previous engagement with this topic whatsoever or any preconceptions about any of the people involved, so when visiting your site I did so as a casual but interested observer, with a bias towards 'being on the side of skepticism' given I'm an active skeptic. What I saw was a site which presented no evidence that the subject of it is doing any harm to society whatsoever or indeed is anything but, at best, a harmless crank, and at worse, someone with the audacity to disagree with you on the internet.

When I posed some questions, it was made clear to me, by you, that in order to understand the issue (and therefore be qualified to debate it, I infer), I need to have read thousands of posts on the topic. No-one is going to do that from scratch. There's no benefit when the 'harm' being done by Anita appears to be zero.

Your website, whose sole existence is to attack another person, has to present a convincing argument. It doesn't. In fact, to me, it looks like a bullying tactic. You have supporters. I don't see Anita's. You are asking her to come and debate with you in an environment free from JREF forum rules and restrictions. I have in fact looked at some of the threads and I think your tone is quite aggressive and hers is unstable. The restrictions imposed on this forum are very good for keeping dialogue civil, legal, and fair. What such restrictions apply to your site?

Now, Anita hasn't asked me to defend her. I don't know her. I have no evidence that she's mentally ill. I have no evidence that the harm caused to her (or by association, JREF forum), by a site dedicated to 'naming and defaming' her when her 'crimes' are those of "spewing half-baked ideas" and "contacting a shopping mall" will even exist. I have formed my opinion of what I think is likely to happen based on my reading of your site and engaging with you in this thread. But I assure you, if I have come to that conclusion, I won't be the only one.

Equally, you have no evidence that any of her actions are causing, or will ever cause, harm. This is entirely different to the Sylvia and Kaz sites which inspired you. The tone of those sites is entirely different, the arguments and the conclusions one draws from them are entirely different. If that were not the case, I would not be arguing with you, but your site does have an air of mob mentality that alarms me, and Anita does have an air of "needs help not attacks" that saddens me.

You want to stop the woo before it does any harm. The problem with that is, you don't have a crystal ball. You have no evidence of any harm. Your comment on your website is "let the games begin". That speaks volumes to the site's motive and attitude. Stopsylvia is just about the most unbiased website on the internet. Yours has two positions. Either Anita is lying, or crazy. There is no "she may really have these powers" option, which is fine given it's extremely unlikely that she doesn't, but first, without testing, we don't know, and secondly, shouldn't it be up to the reader to decide from an unbiased summary?

If she's crazy, what are you doing?

If she's a fraud, to this degree, what is the motive of her fraud and how is this site going to stop her? In fact you've already stated that you can't stop her. Any casual visitors to the site (not that many people will ever google 'visionfromfeeling' unless they're already reading here) are, apparently, meant to read thousands of posts before being qualified to form an opinion. So, other than providing a 'gaming platform' for you to debate with Anita, publicly, with no rules, how does the benefit of the site outweigh the potential harm to Anita or your reputation as a skeptic?

I also have no crystal ball. The difference is, I'm not going to start a 'stopthebullying' website to try and curb your behaviour or censor your 'half-baked ideas'. I'm simply going to state my opinion in this thread, once again, that when starting what you called a 'stopthiswoo' site, you have to be absolutely sure that the harm you are going to cause to the subject of the site, who is a real live person with real feelings, emotions (and access to lawyers), is completely outweighed by the harm that person is doing to society.

LONGTABBER PE

31st March 2009, 03:08 AM

eirik

31st March 2009, 03:49 AM

I had no choice but to avoid the evidence, because you didn't provide any.
My request was for evidence of Anita adversely affecting anyone's health.
You are squirming now.

Yes, I have evidence for that. But it's too potentially distressing to link to here.
To go with your analogy, what you're doing is accusing Anita of either pushing or persuading people into acid baths. You have no evidence for this allegation.
You're fearmongering.

Try the original VFF thread, which after hundreds of such posts, had to be shut down by management due to the level of baseness those attacking Anita had resorted to.

You have established no actual harm. When actual harm has been established then people can rightly go to the authorities; instead of cowardly letters to people in her personal life.

Plucked these out of the air, didn't you.
If you really believe Anita has done anything seriously harmful or illegal to anyone then you should have the courage of your convictions and call the police. Go ahead, and report back.
If you don't do so, why would that be?
Lack of evidence?

Plumjam, with all due respect, this is a straw man. Lightindarkness didn't state that VfF causes people harm, he spesifically said that her actions, as she herself has presented them, is a DANGER to public. A lose definition of danger would be the potential of harm.

One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters.

I was initially skeptical of the stopsylvia-site, but after reading it, I see that Lancaster always is polite and matter of factly, writes very well and even respectfully, and that he has avoided sheer ridicule. If the site in question is done as well as Lancasters, it has my full support.

eirik

lionking

31st March 2009, 03:57 AM

plumjam

31st March 2009, 05:01 AM

Plumjam, with all due respect, this is a straw man. Lightindarkness didn't state that VfF causes people harm, he spesifically said that her actions, as she herself has presented them, is a DANGER to public. A lose definition of danger would be the potential of harm.

One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters.

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm.
If a person has a history of harming others then one can rightly take reasonable precautions with them, such as probation, tagging, rehabilitation etc..
As far as any of us here know, it seems that Anita has no history of either harming people or encouraging people to harm themselves. I've asked for evidence and none has been provided.
Therefore to attack her in this way is completely unjustified.

eirik

31st March 2009, 05:29 AM

To repeat, Sylvia's objective is to make money out of fools. There is no evidence VFF is doing this.

Potentially (a word you didn't use) she could be a danger to others, but so can anyone else on this forum. The website in question is a disgrace.

First: I don't see why you feel taking money is so important. It does indicate that she might not be a fraud. But, IMO it is not a big question whether VfF is deluded or a fraud. For the public health, the result is the same. She poses a threat to the health of people who trust her when she diagnoses people with fantasies.

Secondly: The term danger was used by LightinDarkness, and then straw-manned by Plumjam as "harm". Danger is the potential of harm. Is there a semantical difference between potential and potentially? If so, OK, I stand corrected.

If I or any other person on the forum pose a danger to anyone, I would like to hear it. This argument is just plain silly, and I would advise you to think it through. The term "danger" is quantifyable, not some lose term you can use any way you like because any behaviour has a potential for harm. The term is used in scandinavian law as well as international law. It would surprise me if the term isn't used in American law(or any other national law).

An example: A friend of mine got fined for forgetting to put out a barbecue on his own porch. It didn't cause harm, but it posed a danger. In Norway(and other countries I would guess), we have a law that prohibits dangerous behaviour with fire. This means that you can be prosecuted even if your playing with fire, out of sheer luck didn't burn your or any other's house down.

That's why we have speed limits, driving under influence laws, we educate MDs and so on and so on. Many laws restricts dangerous behaviour. This is nothing special. There are many regulations which does not wait till a dangerous behaviour results in harm.

And, law aside, I hope you are not arguing that it's ethical to behave dangerously. No one is going to report her to the police(on the bases of existing information) , but meeting her arguments on this site and any other website is simply the ethical thing to do.

lionking

31st March 2009, 05:43 AM

This shouldn't be about semantics. Potentially causing harm and potentially being dangerous are the same to me in this circumstance. Where is the evidence that VFF is either?

eirik

31st March 2009, 06:00 AM

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm.
If a person has a history of harming others then one can rightly take reasonable precautions with them, such as probation, tagging, rehabilitation etc..
As far as any of us here know, it seems that Anita has no history of either harming people or encouraging people to harm themselves. I've asked for evidence and none has been provided.
Therefore to attack her in this way is completely unjustified.

Why is potential harm not good enough? If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

Your binary useage of the term "dangerous", dangerous or non-dangerous is just not the common use. In fact, it makes the term useless, as I suspect is your objective. Yes, all behaviour is to some degree potential dangerous. This is semantics, and not very productive either. And basing a decision of danger on peoples prior behaviour can be productive, but does not cover it, it narrows it down to the point of uselessness. Maybe if you read my my prior post on legal use of the term. I think it's close to commonsensical usage.

It can be quantified by the following factors, as is in scandinavian law, EU-law and in insurance prognosis and so on. My bet is it is an international term: The severity of the potential harm and the probability the harm will actually occur.

The severity of the harm in this case is a faulty diagnose and the implications this will have on a persons health. I would say the severity of the potential harm is substantial. The probability is VERY high, since she has stated she will continue doing it, and she has repeatedly said that nothing can change her mind that she has superpowers, and that she intends too use them on people. Friends and family are also "people" you know. But I have no reason to think she will stop there. The fact is that she has not demonstrated a single succesful test. To the contrary, she has avoided tests at ALL, and claims the superpowers has to be "falsified". I doubt she has even heard of a null hypothesis.

Ergo, she is quantifyably and objectively dangerous, based on her own account, which will do plenty as evidense in this context. Not a little dangerous, and arguably not extremely, just plain good old dangerous.

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 06:04 AM

Wow. Talk about judge, jury and executioner.

eirik

31st March 2009, 06:07 AM

No. It's called an argument.

lionking

31st March 2009, 06:15 AM

Not a very good one though.

EHocking

31st March 2009, 06:18 AM

To repeat, Sylvia's objective is to make money out of fools. There is no evidence VFF is doing this. Because she has removed the page where she attempts to sell a product - Body Art (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:UQxWGuBHJ98J:visionfromfeeling.com/bodyart.html). A trivial example, granted, but to me it shows intent.
Potentially (a word you didn't use) she could be a danger to others, but so can anyone else on this forum. The website in question is a disgrace.

eirik

31st March 2009, 06:33 AM

Not a very good one though.

Oh no!! You got me! Thank you for your long sought opinion, if you only knew what this means to me. If only you had said this earlier. Kudos! :th:You really set a new standard for debate with this.

lionking

31st March 2009, 06:37 AM

Well it was after your brilliant riposte:

No. It's called an argument.

plumjam

31st March 2009, 06:41 AM

Why is potential harm not good enough? If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

Your binary useage of the term "dangerous", dangerous or non-dangerous is just not the common use. In fact, it makes the term useless, as I suspect is your objective. Yes, all behaviour is to some degree potential dangerous. This is semantics, and not very productive either. And basing a decision of danger on peoples prior behaviour can be productive, but does not cover it, it narrows it down to the point of uselessness. Maybe if you read my my prior post on legal use of the term. I think it's close to commonsensical usage.

It can be quantified by the following factors, as is in scandinavian law, EU-law and in insurance prognosis and so on. My bet is it is an international term: The severity of the potential harm and the probability the harm will actually occur.

The severity of the harm in this case is a faulty diagnose and the implications this will have on a persons health. I would say the severity of the potential harm is substantial. The probability is VERY high, since she has stated she will continue doing it, and she has repeatedly said that nothing can change her mind that she has superpowers, and that she intends too use them on people. Friends and family are also "people" you know. But I have no reason to think she will stop there. The fact is that she has not demonstrated a single succesful test. To the contrary, she has avoided tests at ALL, and claims the superpowers has to be "falsified". I doubt she has even heard of a null hypothesis.

Ergo, she is quantifyably and objectively dangerous, based on her own account, which will do plenty as evidense in this context. Not a little dangerous, and arguably not extremely, just plain good old dangerous.

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them.
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose.
You're from Scandinavia. I'm going to attack you for that, with the justification that you may one day potentially forcefeed me the local rotten fish; resulting in great damage to both my digestive system and my social life.

Overreacting to fearmongering about the prospect of potential harm can be equally or more harmful than the vaunted danger itself.. e.g. Iraqi WMD.

eirik

31st March 2009, 06:53 AM

Well it was after your brilliant riposte:
Ok, i retract. I should have said: Oh, the irony.

The usual debate form (that i know of) is more like
1. Argument
2. well, that's not a very good argument, Because(this is the vital point): Contra argument
2. Rebuttal
..
Ad infinitum

That's why I, in this particular context am not solely after your unsubstantiated opinion. I would, on the other hand greatly appreciate an argument as to why you feel dangerous behaviour is not something to criticize. I read your response, 'beacause we are all to some degree dangerous'. I showed you that this argument is based on a misconseption of the term dangerous.

lionking

31st March 2009, 07:02 AM

That's why I, in this particular context am not solely after your unsubstantiated opinion.

Unsubstantiated? Now that's really ironic. You and others are making the claim that VFF is causing harm. Where's the proof? The website in question remains a disgrace.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 07:42 AM

VisionFromFeeling, thanks for responding to my questions: however, I was posing them to UncaYimmy, and I wanted him to be answer those questions given he's the one who made the accusations. No, I resent that! And then I saw UncaYimmy answer those questions incorrectly! Are you all going to talk over my head, spreading misunderstandings and circulating untruthts about my investigation, rather than ask at the source and hear my version of it, since, after all, I was there? :rolleyes:

You are all saying that I've read and expressed to those persons what I perceived about their health and checked for accuracy with 100 people, when all I said was that I've experienced medical perceptions from about 100 people. I don't want lies about me spread, why can't you all *make the effort* to sometimes ask for my version of what I did?
all I have to say to you, and I mean this with the best will in the world, is that professional mental health advice is often the best medicine.Since you are a new poster to threads about my investigation, and other Forum Skeptics have dodged answering this question, would you care to tell me why? Be specific, "because you're delusional" doesn't answer this question.

One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters. eirik, there are plenty of items in your own home that can be very dangerous to other people if you do not know how to use them with great care and responsibility. Not to mention your own body, you could kill someone with your bare hands if you were out of control. If my medical perceptions are a potential harm, so is everything else. It is not about what we have but who we are and how responsibly we handle what we have. I am very conscious to not cause others harm with my medical perceptions. And that is why I do not let a person know when I sense something serious in them, why I do not offer public readings although I could be making at least $6,336,000 a year from doing that and obviously get away with it and why I go through great lengths to ensure that everyone who participates in my investigation comes to no harm. So I don't see why we are all accusing me? It is perfectly valid and in fact quite necessary to discuss the possible harm, but not to conclude me being of the character that would actually be responsible of it already or as having shown signs of being headed in that direction, when clearly there is no indication of it at this point.
One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters.Lots of men walk by a woman and have fantasies about what they would like to do with her. But that doesn't make a man a rapist.
For the public health, the result is the same. She poses a threat to the health of people who trust her when she diagnoses people with fantasies.I do not share with people what I sense about them. Persons who volunteer for the study will fill in an anonymous health questionnaire and do not find out what I perceived about them.
If I or any other person on the forum pose a danger to anyone, I would like to hear it. Everyone poses a danger to others. It's a question of what kind of person you are.
An example: A friend of mine got fined for forgetting to put out a barbecue on his own porch. It didn't cause harm, but it posed a danger. In Norway(and other countries I would guess), we have a law that prohibits dangerous behaviour with fire. This means that you can be prosecuted even if your playing with fire, out of sheer luck didn't burn your or any other's house down.Good point, but it remains that I do not express the medical perceptions to people. They remain in my head, whereas the fire was in the outside world. Applying your analogy to me would be like fining the man for even thinking about making a fire.
Why is potential harm not good enough? Because I resent being seen as a threat to others when I am not. I am keeping my medical perceptions within the investigation, and no one comes to harm in my investigation.
If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you? The legal system would not find me guilty of a crime for how I conduct my investigation.
The severity of the potential harm and the probability the harm will actually occur. The severity of the potential harm is quite serious, but so is the severity of the potential harm if you decide to turn your kitchen knife into a murder weapon or yourself into a rapist.
The probability is VERY high, since she has stated she will continue doing it, and she has repeatedly said that nothing can change her mind that she has superpowers, and that she intends too use them on people. The way you guys interpret what I say to fit your preconceived ideas about a paranormal claimant. :rolleyes: I have stated that regardless of what my investigation concludes about what the medical perceptions are, the perceptions will continue, since they are not a voluntary act that I choose to do but are part of what I perceive. I don't "do it", I "experience it". I have not said that I have superpowers, I've said I experience medical perceptions, and nothing can change them from occurring, nor would I want to. I don't use them on people.
But I have no reason to think she will stop there. The fact is that she has not demonstrated a single succesful test. I am working towards having a test. I will have a test.
To the contrary, she has avoided tests at ALLI am not. I have accepted every single offer of a test about my medical perceptions. So far, three such offers have been made by Forum members, all of which I accepted, the posters of all of which mysteriously vanished. In fact, see this page (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/bookmeup.html) where I ask for anyone to set up a study opportunity for me, which will lead to a test. My paranormal claim is medical perceptions, and I would take such a test right away if it were offered. Before I have my official test with the IIG I need to find out whether the perceptions work with a screen between me and the persons, what distance is allowed between me and the persons, what specific ailments are the best ones to choose for test purposes, and more, and that is why I am working on the study at the moment. Which will lead to the test. :)

Ashles

31st March 2009, 07:50 AM

As an undergraduate I am studying a B.S. Chemistry, a B.S. Physics Optical Science, as much Electrical Engineering as I can fit in. Then I hope to do graduate studies in Optical Physics and Engineering and also Histology (the study of human tissue structure) until finally a Ph.D. in Medical Physics. So it is all those things combined, Ashles.
That's all study.
I asked what actual job you were planning on after that.

Unless it is to research in a brand new field which you will have invented, in which case you needn't bother replying.

eirik

31st March 2009, 08:00 AM

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them.
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose

No. My whole approach is fine, and in tune with all legal systems I have studied. As I explained, there are many laws prohibiting dangerous behaviour. The evaluation of evidence is the same, only the question of WHAT to prove is different. I really don't understand your concern. I have a feeling it has to do with your useless definition of danger. I assure you, it's not in use, beacause it's...useless.

FYI, there are 4 main groups of crime regulations, if you sort after substance(this is from a standard in Norwegian and Scandinavian crime law literature, Andenæs "Introduction to general crime law"(translated), p 52:

1. rules that punishes after cause(if you cause a certain result, so and so)
2. rules that punishes after danger(if you behave dangerous is a certain way, so and so)
3. rules that punishes what you actually do (if you hit someone, so and so)
4 rules that punishes what you don't do(if you don't try to rescue someone in danger that you are in a position to save, so and so)

All of these are frequently used and (super) non controversial. See especially no. 2.

I have never heard anyone seriously arguing that these regulations are uncivilised or a threat to human rights, or a rule of law. Crime law is very internationalized by now, with the UN charter, the EC of human rights, and the assorted different international courts. It's very much basically the same from nation to nation, and NOT ONE lawyer shares your concern that these rules opens up to a subjective and discriminatory legal system, police state or whatever terror-regimeish scenario comes to mind. If so, show me.

I didn't understand your referance to Iraq, but i have a feeling it is WAY of point.

Come on, meet me half way. This is devastating to your case, which I in some sense and to some degree can sympathize. Or at least respectfully disagree with. This is in regard to the point you might have if the site in question is abusive or nasty to VfF. What I have seen is not, but hey.

Eirik

Cuddles

31st March 2009, 08:01 AM

Why is potential harm not good enough? If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

Potentially, I could murder hundreds of people in a drug-fuelled rampage. Fortunately, the legal system does not appear to have the standards you think it does.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 08:06 AM

That's all study.
I asked what actual job you were planning on after that.

Unless it is to research in a brand new field which you will have invented, in which case you needn't bother replying. I hate to involve anything from my personal or professional life into the discussions about my paranormal investigation, but I'll answer that. My goal as I see it now is to become a research Ph.D. in Medical Physics, to study the interaction of light/radiation with human tissue, to design electronic instruments that generate light structures for the purpose of destruction of specific structures in the body or for the rearrangement of body material. My research ideas are based on how I perceive the world in terms of vibration, which gives me a very easy way of relating to concepts of electromagnetism, conventional physics and structures in the human body as well as inspires some very interesting research hypotheses for me. My work is based on conventional science, but my research ideas are based on my perceptions and will go through the same process of evaluation as any other inspiration a scientist has, regardless of the source of inspiration or thought processes that occurred in the scientist that lead to those ideas.

Ashles

31st March 2009, 08:11 AM

Exactly as I suspected.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 08:18 AM

eirik

31st March 2009, 08:22 AM

Unsubstantiated? Now that's really ironic. You and others are making the claim that VFF is causing harm. Where's the proof? The website in question remains a disgrace.

I. Am. Not. Claiming. VfF. Is. Causing. Harm.

For the third time - Can you drop the straw already? I took it apart hours ago, as have others. I and others are claiming she is a danger. Should i waste even more good internet on explaining the term? The evidence is her own accounts.

I made a good argument she is dangerous, to which I get the strange "judge jury and executioner" comment, and the even more immature reply 'your argument is not good'.

Oh NO! It's not GOOD? How can I go on after this?

Pityful.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 08:22 AM

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

ETA: I approve of the editing, was expecting it, and was considering removing the remark myself. Thank you. And sorry, Eirik. I hope my point was clear though.

eirik

31st March 2009, 08:37 AM

Potentially, I could murder hundreds of people in a drug-fuelled rampage. Fortunately, the legal system does not appear to have the standards you think it does.

No, it does not appear to have the standards you think it does. There's no shame in that, as most non-lawyers often has a skewed picture of the legal systems and it's mechanisms. I am fully aware of many or most of the imperfections and weaknesses of the legal system. This is simply not one of them.

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations. And this is a very incontroversial fact and just an accepted selfevident neccessary side of our legal system and ethics.

I have never heard anyone argue this is a threat to citizens. And that is a revealing fact, because lawyers and law scholars just love controversy, especially at the expence of law-givers, and the litterature is FULL of every controversy you both can and cannot imagine.

But hey, I leave it to you guys: find a lawyer who by principle argues that prohibiting dangerous behaviour is a threat to the justice of citizens. One name is all I need, perhaps even from a scholar? I think not.

eirik

Ashles

31st March 2009, 08:40 AM

I have good automatic visualizing skills that are very helpful for me in science. Perceiving math, equations and science concepts in terms of pictures of shapes and colors and vibrations that change and interact together all on their own is very helpful. It is reminiscent to me of what goes on in the mind of Daniel Tammet, (begin watching 5 minutes 20 seconds into the video)

:rolleyes:
Anita please try to rein in your constant compulsion to self-aggrandise.
This is serious advice - it would help you come across as less insufferably pompous.
If you really were as amazing as you keep claiming you would probably have been famous at 15 and already have reams of published research behind you, and serious study performed on you. This is not the case

At the moment, you are a 26 year old science student with an imagination. Nothing more, nothing less.
Save the glowing self-recommendations for when there is something unusual to report. Backed up by actual facts preferably.

plumjam

31st March 2009, 08:42 AM

No. My whole approach is fine, and in tune with all legal systems I have studied. As I explained, there are many laws prohibiting dangerous behaviour. The evaluation of evidence is the same, only the question of WHAT to prove is different. I really don't understand your concern. I have a feeling it has to do with your useless definition of danger. I assure you, it's not in use, beacause it's...useless.
As far as I'm aware I have made no attempt whatsoever to set out a definition of danger. So you going on about my definition of danger being useless is just a bit strange.

FYI, there are 4 main groups of crime regulations, if you sort after substance(this is from a standard in Norwegian and Scandinavian crime law literature, Andenæs "Introduction to general crime law"(translated), p 52:

1. rules that punishes after cause(if you cause a certain result, so and so)
2. rules that punishes after danger(if you behave dangerous is a certain way, so and so)
3. rules that punishes what you actually do (if you hit someone, so and so)
4 rules that punishes what you don't do(if you don't try to rescue someone in danger that you are in a position to save, so and so)

All of these are frequently used and (super) non controversial. See especially no. 2.

I have never heard anyone seriously arguing that these regulations are uncivilised or a threat to human rights, or a rule of law. Crime law is very internationalized by now, with the UN charter, the EC of human rights, and the assorted different international courts. It's very much basically the same from nation to nation, and NOT ONE lawyer shares your concern that these rules opens up to a subjective and discriminatory legal system, police state or whatever terror-regimeish scenario comes to mind. If so, show me.

I didn't understand your referance to Iraq, but i have a feeling it is WAY of point.

Come on, meet me half way. This is devastating to your case, which I in some sense and to some degree can sympathize. Or at least respectfully disagree with. This is in regard to the point you might have if the site in question is abusive or nasty to VfF. What I have seen is not, but hey.
You clearly want to drag the topic into the area of law, whether national or international, I suspect because you feel like you're on more comfortable ground there.
The problem is that it is of very little relevance to the discussion.
Presumably, where Anita lives, there are (anti-danger) laws against unlicenced people setting themselves up in the guise of medical professionals and diagnosing people.
So if she did that she could be reported and prosecuted.

What you need to do, Eirik, is investigate whether or not she has done this. If she has you can provide your evidence to the relevant authorities and she may well be prosecuted.

If you cannot do this you're left with what? Not a lot, really. Just baseless suspicion, innuendo and the like. Rather a weak platform from which to spend your free time attacking a particular individual.

So go ahead Mr Lawyer, which law has she broken?

tsig

31st March 2009, 08:44 AM

tsig

31st March 2009, 08:48 AM

plumjam

31st March 2009, 08:48 AM

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations. And this is a very incontroversial fact and just an accepted selfevident neccessary side of our legal system and ethics.

Yeah, but what you've been talking about is suspicion of hazardous behaviour.
It is unjust to attack someone merely because you have a baseless suspicion that they may be partaking in hazardous behaviour.

tsig

31st March 2009, 08:49 AM

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 08:54 AM

Are you going to keep whipping the "strawman of harm" when she says she has not been harmed?

Did you read my post? If MY accusation of harm is strawman, then so is UncaYimmy's, so the site is a baseless attack.

You see? Can't have it both ways.

tsig

31st March 2009, 08:56 AM

Yeah, but what you've been talking about is suspicion of hazardous behaviour.
It is unjust to attack someone merely because you have a baseless suspicion that they may be partaking in hazardous behaviour.

Why is it that you construe "I don't believe you" as an attack.

eirik

31st March 2009, 09:00 AM

eirik, you are a danger. You are a potential rapist and a murderer and must be stopped.

I like your analogy, Anita. This is what you should ask yourself: What is the probability of me being a potential rapist and a murderer? Based on your evidence(none), the correct answer is: Extremely low.

You know how science uses a null hypothesis (innocent till proven guilty) and probablilty? Many a legal system also uses these magnificent tools. You must have been there, I guess.

I see many of you have a problem with the criminal legal system using the term "danger". What you need to understand is that the term is not how you or I would use the term. It is not a blanco to imprison the ones we do not like. It's much like science. Theory does not mean theory, and so on. It is a qualified term with a long tradition and a rigid understanding. That's why lawyers and many others go to school.

As in the term "reasonable doubt", it is not "reasonable" to you or me, as in en everyday use of the word,which has a wide use, and in fact could be most anything. The legal meaning is matter of factly, in this context, a probability of 95-100%.

And similarly, "just cause" means over 50% probability (likely).

I hope this helps.

eirik

tsig

31st March 2009, 09:04 AM

Did you read my post? If MY accusation of harm is strawman, then so is UncaYimmy's, so the site is a baseless attack.

You see? Can't have it both ways.

You seem confused. You are accusing UY of harming VfF. UY says he does not believe VfF's claims. Two different things.

Jackalgirl

31st March 2009, 09:06 AM

Did you read my post? If MY accusation of harm is strawman, then so is UncaYimmy's, so the site is a baseless attack.

You see? Can't have it both ways.

Where does UY make a claim of harm? Harm to whom? Sorry if I seem confused, but I've been through the thread* and I can't find any place where he claims that VFF has actually harmed anyone. Is this another case of harm <> danger?

*My apologies if I simply missed it. It's midnight where I am, and I should really be asleep. I readily admit to having skimmed really, really quickly.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 09:10 AM

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations. How have I been responsible for hazardous behavior?
But hey, I leave it to you guys: find a lawyer who by principle argues that prohibiting dangerous behaviour is a threat to the justice of citizens. One name is all I need, perhaps even from a scholar? I think not. Find one lawyer who says that my investigation has broken some law or regulation and that it therefore requires legal action and consequence?

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 09:16 AM

This is turning into some sort of surreal kangaroo court. I find it embarrassing to share a board with people who think this is a reasonable or ethical skeptical position.

There was even a comparison earlier about the potential for harm based on an analogy of a barbeque being left out. Such restrictions are based on health and safety laws which are based on precedents and evidence. There are no precedents and there is no evidence to suggest Anita is going to do anyone any harm, now or in the future. There is no evidence to show that people with strange beliefs or delusions who post on internet message boards go on to have a lucrative or dangerous career in their woo. It's in no way relevant to any laws or regulations. It's silly to suggest it. The public don't take kindly to the idea of being arrested because they might commit a crime. Legal terms are not relevant to this discussion.

Anita hasn't done anything wrong. What do you want to happen, eirik? Do you want her to go away? To admit she has no powers? To go and debate on an unmoderated website with people who are not polite to her? What sort of victory are you seeking, exactly? Criminals are fined or imprisoned. You're determined she has the potential to harm, what do you want the punishment to be? What did the barbecue guy get?

The JREF, for the Million Dollar Challenge, asks that applicants have some media presence and signed affidavits from professionals before applying. This is, in part, to help try and weed out mentally ill people, because encouraging them in their delusions is not only potentially harmful to them and other people (there's plenty of evidence in psychiatry for THAT), but also because it reflects extremely badly on JREF to encourage people who should instead probably seek medical help. I am very sorry that you can't take your lead from JREF.

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 09:20 AM

Where does UY make a claim of harm? Harm to whom? Sorry if I seem confused, but I've been through the thread* and I can't find any place where he claims that VFF has actually harmed anyone. Is this another case of harm <> danger?

*My apologies if I simply missed it. It's midnight where I am, and I should really be asleep. I readily admit to having skimmed really, really quickly.

He claims that her actions will lead to harm, presumably at some undetermined point in the future when she's as famous as Uri Geller. As for harm to whom, I've tried to find that out myself but haven't had any success. I've asked for evidence for why UY believes she will pose a threat to society, and he gave me a list which included, amongst other crimes, that she's contacted a local shopping mall and several professors.

plumjam

31st March 2009, 09:22 AM

Why is it that you construe "I don't believe you" as an attack.
Highly disingenuous of you to present that website as simply an expression of "I don't believe you". The content and tone is not of that nature, but rather one designed to give the impression that this named individual is either a liar/fraud or is mentally ill.

Tsig, are you a fraud or just crazy?

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 09:26 AM

I like your analogy, Anita. This is what you should ask yourself: What is the probability of me being a potential rapist and a murderer? Based on your evidence(none), the correct answer is: Extremely low. Heh, then when you ask yourself what is the probability of me causing others harm with perceiving and investigating my medical perceptions, what is the answer that you get? You also have no evidence to suspect me of being headed toward causing others harm. Let me reiterate:

I could be making $6,336,000 (http://brentenergywork.com/SERVICES.htm) a year, and would obviously get away with it, but am I even remotely interested? No, I am disgusted by even the idea! I put my faith of reliable medical diagnose in the hands of science. I am a scientist science student with all that it entails. The inspiration and new thought I receive from my personal perceptions of health and the way I relate to the topic of medicine I put into creative ideas for new research hypotheses in conventional medicine. You know, stuff that doesn't even get out of the lab until it's been properly tested and found both effective and relatively harmless. :D

Your concerns of the potential harm of psychic medical diagnose are very valid, and must be expressed in relation to claims such as mine. However, to move from suspicion to what comes across as utter belief that I would be headed in that wrong direction, are starting to seem hurtful to me. :(

And in my humble opinion eirik's attempts at representing law in this case is very reminiscent of how a woo uses science and turns it into pseudoscience by lack of thorough understanding of how it would apply in the case in question.

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 09:28 AM

You seem confused. You are accusing UY of harming VfF. UY says he does not believe VfF's claims. Two different things.

Ah, I see you didn't read my post. I didn't accuse him of any such thing. I said there is potential for harm, to Anita, to JREF forum's reputation by association. I also said I have no evidence for such an assertion, but my response to it has not been to start a website attacking UY. UY believes that Anita poses potential for harm (to who or what we don't know), he has no evidence for that, but has started a website attacking her anyway.

Moochie

31st March 2009, 09:33 AM

My website posts a comprehensive and up-to-date source of the material I gather in my investigation. My website is quite necessary since I wish to document the progress of the investigation publicly for those who are interested in how a paranormal investigation might go about. And in case you didn't notice, so far I like UncaYimmy's website. :)
My career will be in conventional Physics. And I swear on all four of Maxwell's equations. :halo:

VfF, as I've said numerous times before, we don't really know how much of what you've posted here is objectively true, ie, able to be corroborated by others who are known in real life by all or most of us. That being the case, I see this entire business as a form of bizarre entertainment, with a cast of dozens (at least) and a meandering Lost-like script.

Having said that, I'll admit to liking bizarre entertainment; it helps me pass the time (which I have far too much of since I was retrenched for the second time back in 2004). Like most people aware of you and your writings, I have my pet theories regarding what you're up to. Some of them I've mentioned in passing the few times I've posted in these threads. Some of them match those put forward by others writing here. I wouldn't put money on any single theory, however, because I (we) have no evidence.

And evidence is what we all seek. And perhaps we shall find. :)

M.

ETA: It's already April 1 here -- so, well, we shall see what we shall see. :D

Ashles

31st March 2009, 09:42 AM

I think the level of ridiculous hyperbole and irony has reached a critical mass on this thread.

Can it not simply be left that there is another website that has been set up to discuss Anita's claim outside of the moderation of the JREF.

It is by its nature critical of Anita's claims and is to some extent a product of frustration regarding the specific claim and how it has not moved forward in the monmths it has been discussed.

Anita was well treated for a good part of the initial thread and comments onl deteriorated as a result of the lack of progress of the claim, and, it must be said, by less than entirely flawless behaviour by Anita herself as well.

Bearing in mind all of this, another website in no way affiliated to the JREF seems a sensible approach for those who wish to discuss the claims outside of the moderation of the JREF.

Those who find it unpleasant or distasteful shouldn't visit it. Lecturing others about whether they should or shouldn't have set up such a website seems unproductive and a little arrogant. A lot of positive and helpful interaction with Anita has taken place on these forums already so it's unfair to imply it is simply mean-spirited for no reason. This claim already has quite a lot of history and the website is a product of that.
Conversely those who set up the website specifically to have discussions such as this might be better to keep them over on that website.

What do we all reckon about that?

Jackalgirl

31st March 2009, 09:42 AM

He claims that her actions will lead to harm, presumably at some undetermined point in the future when she's as famous as Uri Geller. As for harm to whom, I've tried to find that out myself but haven't had any success. I've asked for evidence for why UY believes she will pose a threat to society, and he gave me a list which included, amongst other crimes, that she's contacted a local shopping mall and several professors.

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing that claim. The closest thing I can see to that is an analogy to Sylvia Browne and her fraudulent activities. As for the list -- did that happen in this thread, or in another? I don't see him mentioning shopping malls or professors in this thread -- again, I may be missing it, but I suspect that discussion happened somewhere else. Am I correct?

He said:

I hope to stop her from spreading pseudoscience and misinformation unchecked. I hope to stop her from turning her abilities into a fraudulent business like this fraud who is doing what Anita claims to be able to do.

It may be a mistake to assume that VFF plans to make a business out of her superpowers, I grant you that. However, that's only one prong of UY's effort; the other is "to stop her from spreading pseudoscience and misinformation". She's utilized this website to spread her claims. She has a website where she makes unsubstantiated claims -- claims which she is not willing to substantiate with anything other than anecdote, mind you -- regarding her superpowers.

I honestly do not see UY stating that he claims she is actually doing harm, or any statement that her actions will inevidably lead to harm. Again. if he has actually said this, then I have completely missed it after three re-reads of the thread (and I don't see it on his site -- on the front page, at least). Please point it out to me and I will gladly admit my error.

Now, I see other people claiming that she is dangerous (as in, has the potential to do harm) based on her own stated intent to continue to diagnose people using her superpowers and her complete unwillingness to have those superpowers tested (or to consider that she might, in fact, not have superpowers). The probability that she will eventually do harm to people is higher (based on the evidence of her own stated intent to continue diagnosing people with her superpowers) than the chance, say, that eirik will rape someone (which is a chance based on no evidence whatsoever).

And the probability that VFF will attempt to spread misinformation and pseudoscience is 100%, based on her past and current actions and her stated intentions.

If someone spends a great deal of time spreading misinformation and pseudoscience in an extremely public fashion, is that person exempted from scruitiny if she doesn't make a cent? At some point in the future, VFF's continuing diagnoses of people based on her superpowers may -- or may not -- cause someone some harm. Even if it does not, is it wrong to state that diagnosing people based on untested superpowers is a bad thing? Is it wrong to make that statement in a highly visible, public forum, when the person is proclaiming what she is doing in a highly visible, public forum?

Akhenaten

31st March 2009, 09:43 AM

<Scissors of Brevity>

$1100 for a full-body scan! I could perform one of those in 20 minutes! If I worked for a full 8 hour day, for 40 hours a week, for an entire year, I would make...

$3300 an hour,
$26400 a day,
$132,000 a week,
$528,000 a month,
$6,336,000 a year!

<TM™>

I want all of you to trust me when I say, that even if I could *get away with* taking such money as above, I am not tempted. I am disgusted. :D

I want to trust you, and I'll bet in many ways I already do. I don't think you're tempted to do anything naughty at the moment, but as you point out above, there's a big fortune to be made for the unscrupulous. I'd like to help you to not be perceived as anything other than honest and well-intenioned in the future, and in that way, I'm only a potential Meanie™.

As long as you play nice, I share your disgust :)

Dear Skeptics, I am your good Claimant. :)

You're one in a million Anita. You could be a bright light in the world.

tkingdoll

31st March 2009, 09:45 AM

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing that claim. The closest thing I can see to that is an analogy to Sylvia Browne and her fraudulent activities. As for the list -- did that happen in this thread, or in another? I don't see him mentioning shopping malls or professors in this thread -- again, I may be missing it, but I suspect that discussion happened somewhere else. Am I correct?

Nope, you're missing it, unless those posts have disappeared. This is the only thread about this topic I've participated in.

If someone spends a great deal of time spreading misinformation and pseudoscience in an extremely public fashion, is that person exempted from scruitiny if she doesn't make a cent? At some point in the future, VFF's continuing diagnoses of people based on her superpowers may -- or may not -- cause someone some harm. Even if it does not, is it wrong to state that diagnosing people based on untested superpowers is a bad thing? Is it wrong to make that statement in a highly visible, public forum, when the person is proclaiming what she is doing in a highly visible, public forum?

Nope, it's not wrong to make that statement in a highly visible, public forum where the person is making those claims. I've never objected to that. I object to http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/

tsig

31st March 2009, 09:48 AM

Jackalgirl

31st March 2009, 09:49 AM

Nope, you're missing it, unless those posts have disappeared. This is the only thread about this topic I've participated in.

Well, could you help me out and link to the post? I'd like to see the context and I can't find it. I don't disbelieve you -- I just can't find it.

Nope, it's not wrong to make that statement in a highly visible, public forum where the person is making those claims. I've never objected to that. I object to http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/

I grok that. But I don't understand why. What is it about UY's site that is disagreeable? Where is the specific claim that VFF is hurting people? Are there untruthful or libelous statements on his site? Is it that graphic on the front page?

eirik

31st March 2009, 09:54 AM

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm

You are wrong, not only is it a a right, but a legal right. I showed that this is not even correct in the criminal legal system. Potential harm is regulated practiucally EVERYWHERE. You wanted to bicker on this because you have a problem listening to othere peoples arguments. And freedom of speech besides, is this where you whip out a philosophical/ethical discussion? It is not REALLY a right, it's the SYSTEM!! Remember your goal posts.

As far as I'm aware I have made no attempt whatsoever to set out a definition of danger. So you going on about my definition of danger being useless is just a bit strange

See above. I know you were busy with your strawman of UJ not being able to prove that Anita was doing «harm», but your functioning definition of «danger» was that 'one can not attack others on the basis of their «potential harm»'.

Hmmm, it is your position that one can not "attack others" on the basis of danger. Now, THAT is interesting. But, keep digging..

You clearly want to drag the topic into the area of law, whether national or international, I suspect because you feel like you're on more comfortable ground there.
The problem is that it is of very little relevance to the discussion.
Presumably, where Anita lives, there are (anti-danger) laws against unlicenced people setting themselves up in the guise of medical professionals and diagnosing people.
So if she did that she could be reported and prosecuted.

No, I don't care about this at all. You raised the issue, remember?

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm

What you need to do, Eirik, is investigate whether or not she has done this. If she has you can provide your evidence to the relevant authorities and she may well be prosecuted.

No, I need not do anything but watching goalposts flying everywhere.

If you cannot do this you're left with what? Not a lot, really. Just baseless suspicion, innuendo and the like. Rather a weak platform from which to spend your free time attacking a particular individual.

So go ahead Mr Lawyer, which law has she broken?

Hmm, ad hominem, and derailing. I'm not a court of law. Did I give you that impression? You seemed so capable.

Yeah, but what you've been talking about is suspicion of hazardous behaviour.
It is unjust to attack someone merely because you have a baseless suspicion that they may be partaking in hazardous behaviour.

No, it is not "unjust". I am not talking about «suspicion» much less baseless. You know why? All the evidence is from VfFs own account. Sure, she could be lying, but I don't care. I take her word for it in this informal forum, and i criticize it when i feel like it.

This is not a court room, and I am not reporting her to the police. I simply agree with UncaJimmys efforts, and I find it educating and enlightening in the process. And so does appearently VfF.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 09:56 AM

Now, I see other people claiming that she is dangerous (as in, has the potential to do harm) based on her own stated intent to continue to diagnose people using her superpowers and her complete unwillingness to have those superpowers tested (or to consider that she might, in fact, not have superpowers). Nonsense! What I've said is that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, once I find out what the actual correlation is between my medical perceptions and with actual health, the perceptions continue to occur and I will continue to experience them! Not that I'd be expressing the perceptions to people! :mad:

Furthermore I am working very hard to reach a final testing protocol with the IIG. The study (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) gathers the experience and insight I need in order to form a test protocol (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html)!

And I definitely consider that my medical perceptions might in fact not correlate with reality, or that they may be the result of non-paranormal means such as unintentional and subconscious cold reading that picks up external clues about health and translates it into visual and felt medical perceptions. :mad:

The probability that she will eventually do harm to people is higher (based on the evidence of her own stated intent to continue diagnosing people with her superpowers) than the chance, say, that eirik will rape someone (which is a chance based on no evidence whatsoever).There is no evidence that I have any intention or tendency of expressing to people other than close friends and family and very carefully, what medical perceptions I perceive from them! :mad:

And the probability that VFF will attempt to spread misinformation and pseudoscience is 100%, based on her past and current actions and her stated intentions.My intent, whether it comes across or not, is to provide a documentary into how a science student critically analyzes and investigates her paranormal experience.

tsig

31st March 2009, 09:58 AM

Highly disingenuous of you to present that website as simply an expression of "I don't believe you". The content and tone is not of that nature, but rather one designed to give the impression that this named individual is either a liar/fraud or is mentally ill.

Tsig, are you a fraud or just crazy?

The usual connotation of "I don't believe you" is that you are not telling the truth.

Don't you find it a bit disingenuous to complain about UY calling VfF a fraud and then to do the same thing to me in the next sentence?

eirik

31st March 2009, 10:10 AM

Anita hasn't done anything wrong. What do you want to happen, eirik? Do you want her to go away? To admit she has no powers? To go and debate on an unmoderated website with people who are not polite to her? What sort of victory are you seeking, exactly? Criminals are fined or imprisoned. You're determined she has the potential to harm, what do you want the punishment to be? What did the barbecue guy get?

The barbecue guy got fined with kr 5000, about 700 USD. I am actually glad that VfF is here, but I am also glad we have people here and elsewhere to argue against her position. I am not after a "victory". I am for discussion and arguments.

I am puzzled that you're telling me that there's something wrong with my ethical and skeptical position. If someone is telling me that they once did/ will do in the future something that by law is illegal, I don't feel that pointing that out is being "judge, jury and executioner". I have not even stateed it is illegal, I am just saying that it might well be illegal. There's nothing special about prohibiting or taking an ethical stand on dangerous behaviour.

I don't report people telling me things in confidence to the police. That is a strange argument. There is a limit to this rule, but we are far from that now.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 10:10 AM

I want to trust you, and I'll bet in many ways I already do. I don't think you're tempted to do anything naughty at the moment, but as you point out above, there's a big fortune to be made for the unscrupulous. I'd like to help you to not be perceived as anything other than honest and well-intenioned in the future, and in that way, I'm only a potential Meanie™.I am a most compassionate and caring individual and I would never charge a person $1100 for an unverified attempt of medical practice which first of all contradicts with my sense of responsibility and scientific professionalism, not to mention to charge $1100 for something I could do for free, considering that there are no material costs involved. The reason an actual MRI costs thousands of dollars is because of the costly research that lead to its creation, the expensive education that its practitioners go through, and all the other costs involved in maintaining such an expensive piece of equipment. Heck, if I was proven to be a true psychic MRI, I'd do it for free! The argument that "well my psychic MRI is only $1100 whereas a real MRI is far more, so I am really giving you a break", which is what I would expect if I were to speak with the woo in question, in fact reveals not compassion toward the budget of their clients but greedy motives. :p

Since you could do it for free. Or for $0.50. :p

As long as you play nice, I share your disgust :)Let's all share in the disgust. :)

plumjam

31st March 2009, 10:11 AM

The usual connotation of "I don't believe you" is that you are not telling the truth.
There are ways of presenting this disbelief. You can do it in a reasoned, civilised manner, or you can choose to indulge in personal attack. UY's way is closer to the latter.

Don't you find it a bit disingenuous to complain about UY calling VfF a fraud and then to do the same thing to me in the next sentence?

That was in order to bring it home to you just exactly what UY is doing to Anita; a not very difficult subtlety which you seem to have missed.
Either way you didn't like it, did you.

Akhenaten

31st March 2009, 10:12 AM

<snippy>

My intent, whether it comes across or not, is to provide a documentary into how a science student critically analyzes and investigates her paranormal experience.

Yup. I see it that way too. The whole thing is an unfolding story, and I have no idea how it will turn out, but I sincerely hope the new site provides an objective means for your documentary to develop.

You know how I feel about your claims, but those feelings haven't kept me from a respect and admiration for you. If nothing else, your determination is awesome!

Cheers

tsig

31st March 2009, 10:13 AM

Ah, I see you didn't read my post. I didn't accuse him of any such thing. I said there is potential for harm, to Anita, to JREF forum's reputation by association. I also said I have no evidence for such an assertion, but my response to it has not been to start a website attacking UY. UY believes that Anita poses potential for harm (to who or what we don't know), he has no evidence for that, but has started a website attacking her anyway.

You say " potential for harm" then you say " I also said I have no evidence for such an assertion".

Might it be smart to wait for evidence before the accusation?

plumjam

31st March 2009, 10:18 AM

You are wrong, not only is it a a right, but a legal right. I showed that this is not even correct in the criminal legal system. Potential harm is regulated practiucally EVERYWHERE. You wanted to bicker on this because you have a problem listening to othere peoples arguments. And freedom of speech besides, is this where you whip out a philosophical/ethical discussion? It is not REALLY a right, it's the SYSTEM!! Remember your goal posts.
Maybe we read different dictionaries, but to me there's a great deal of difference between the authorities enforcing the law, based on evidence.. and people taking it upon themselves to target an individual based on, as yet, nothing

See above. I know you were busy with your strawman of UJ not being able to prove that Anita was doing «harm», but your functioning definition of «danger» was that 'one can not attack others on the basis of their «potential harm»'.

Hmmm, it is your position that one can not "attack others" on the basis of danger. Now, THAT is interesting. But, keep digging..

No, I don't care about this at all. You raised the issue, remember?

No, I need not do anything but watching goalposts flying everywhere.

Hmm, ad hominem, and derailing. I'm not a court of law. Did I give you that impression? You seemed so capable.

No, it is not "unjust". I am not talking about «suspicion» much less baseless. You know why? All the evidence is from VfFs own account. Sure, she could be lying, but I don't care. I take her word for it in this informal forum, and i criticize it when i feel like it.

This is not a court room, and I am not reporting her to the police. I simply agree with UncaJimmys efforts, and I find it educating and enlightening in the process. And so does appearently VfF.

Eirik, you seem mightily confused.
First you want to base your argument on legality, and then when challenged on this you change direction and say it's not about the law.
Make your mind up.

And once you've made your mind up come to the realisation that whichever approach you take will fall down, because both necessarily hinge on you providing evidence. Which you don't have.

Akhenaten

31st March 2009, 10:21 AM

Let's all share in the disgust. :)

We might have it to ourselves since everyone else seems to be busy. Let me tell you about this new website . . .

;)

eirik

31st March 2009, 10:30 AM

Heh, then when you ask yourself what is the probability of me causing others harm with perceiving and investigating my medical perceptions, what is the answer that you get? You also have no evidence to suspect me of being headed toward causing others harm

I think that you are honest in your attempts, and I think that you are a caring and honest person. That's my opinion. I don't think that you willfully want to hurt or cause harm to anybody. My position is based on the threads where simple testing was protocolled, and you did not carry them out. The powers changed every time a protocol was being designed. There is nothing in these threads that indicates that you could have special powers.

I therefore stay with the null hypothesis, you do not have superpowers.

Any attempt you do to diagnose a person will therefore be inprecise, miss things, and find illnesses that are not there. This could be bad for the patient involved. That is my concern. And since health is sort of important to many people, I have concluded that if you continue on your path, you could hurt someone, in worst case, substantially, even though that is not your purpose.

But i do appreciate your presence, and I think it does us all good:)

tsig

31st March 2009, 10:31 AM

There are ways of presenting this disbelief. You can do it in a reasoned, civilised manner, or you can choose to indulge in personal attack. UY's way is closer to the latter.

That was in order to bring it home to you just exactly what UY is doing to Anita; a not very difficult subtlety which you seem to have missed.
Either way you didn't like it, did you.

So now I'm supposed to call you names to prove a point and we all descend into the schoolyard?

You might want to be careful with "proving a point" like that. Some might misunderstand and hit the "report" button out of a misunderstanding. Lucky for you I'm not that way, no?

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 10:43 AM

As per my previous Mod box: content addressing claims made for or against you have been removed. This thread is for discussing the website just started, keep to that topic or don't post in this thread.

ETA: Claims for or against me are what www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com is all about. :rolleyes: Sorry.

krelnik

31st March 2009, 10:48 AM

I don't really want to get in the middle of what is obviously a heated argument, but there is one thing that I would like to point out about the construction of the site.

The site currently links to VisionFromFeeling's own web site using a normal hyperlink. That means that you are giving a Google boost to her material. Your site is new so the current effect is minimal. But if you get traction you are going to be inadvertantly helping her spread her message through Google.

There's a special tag that you can use to avoid this problem. I explain the issues involved in a blog post here: Not just for SPAM anymore: NOFOLLOW for skepticism (http://skeptools.com/2008/09/03/not-just-for-spam-anymore-nofollow-for-skepticism/).

The other major change I would advise is to cut down on the sarcastic tone. It plays well with skeptics but it totally alienates everyone else. But I've written about that elsewhere and again I don't really want to leap into this argument.

Carry on.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 11:03 AM

You are wrong, not only is it a a right, but a legal right. I showed that this is not even correct in the criminal legal system. Potential harm is regulated practiucally EVERYWHERE. eirik, ... ? Don't make me tell you what you could potentially do to others? And: no more pseudolaw, please. :D
You know why? All the evidence is from VfFs own account. Please provide. Like a true representative of the law would. :popcorn1
and I find it educating and enlightening in the process. And so does appearently VfF. Yes, I find my investigation educating and enlightening. In more ways than I had ever expected. :)

I am both confused :confused:, surprised :eek:, and boggled :boggled:, utterly shocked :jaw-dropp, I can't believe it :covereyes, it makes me feel all weak all of a sudden :faint:, I am of course utterly relieved :relieved:, although shocked :shocked:, and I can't believe what I am seeing :wide-eyed, makes me happy of course :D, it's a very nice change for a while :cool:, not that I can believe it :eye-poppi, maybe it's a good thing :shy:, although it's wonderful :clap: ...
there is all this argument going on about me, back and forth, I reply to most of it, yet none of it is ever addressed to me!

:popcorn6 Let's just see what comes out of this.

skeen

31st March 2009, 11:24 AM

Anita will still be posting here when she's 50, convinced as ever!

eirik

31st March 2009, 11:25 AM

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm.
If a person has a history of harming others then one can rightly take reasonable precautions with them, such as probation, tagging, rehabilitation etc..
As far as any of us here know, it seems that Anita has no history of either harming people or encouraging people to harm themselves. I've asked for evidence and none has been provided.
Therefore to attack her in this way is completely unjustified.

Here you go jumping right in to the legal «analogy». Prior to this we were talking about mere criticism. Tip: To do an analogy, it is often an advantage to be familiar with the subject of comparison. Which you do not know as well as you think you do. This was what I responded to. And is doing for the last time.

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them they are dangerous in their behaviour.(edited eirik)
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose.

Fixed that for you:) Again, I rebutted your «argument», which are only unsubstantiated and uneducated guesses, based on, I don't know, mild paranoia and simple misunderstandings. It only goes to show your complete lack of understanding of simple ethics. Dangerous behaviour: bad. Non-dangerous behaviour: good.

Plenty of regulations prohibits dangerous behaviour, without threatening anyones right to a fair trial. One can even say that it is ethical to criticize a person who is acting dangerously. I don't expect you to see the parallelle.

By the way....Oh NO, I just read up on what Iraqi WMD is... pheew, glad I didn't fall for that. When are you bringing up Adolf? He surely must fit here somewhere.

But in all fairness: I shall not fall for your derailing again.

Akhenaten

31st March 2009, 11:34 AM

<snippy>

there is all this argument going on about me, back and forth, I reply to most of it, yet none of it is ever addressed to me!

:popcorn6 Let's just see what comes out of this.

Well yeah, but try and not worry about it so much. Trying to answer too many things gets you running around in circles (me too), and sometimes your frustration shows.

Come over to <that other place> for a while and bring the popcorn. :)

I like your joke with the smileys, but some folks find them annoying, so take care not to provoke the Meanies™

ETA: The underlined bit in the quote above is kind of important. This thread is about UncaYimmy's website, so we need to remember that you only need to answer questions about that.

Moochie

31st March 2009, 11:38 AM

<snipped for brevity>

My intent, whether it comes across or not, is to provide a documentary into how a science student critically analyzes and investigates her paranormal experience.

See, this is blatant nonsense. There is no "paranormal" anything in evidence. True?

M.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 11:41 AM

Plenty of regulations prohibits dangerous behaviour, without threatening anyones right to a fair trial. One can even say that it is ethical to criticize a person who is acting dangerously. I don't expect you to see the parallelle. eirik how is any of what I am doing dangerous to anyone? Go on, pseudolaw can do it! :p

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 11:49 AM

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely crystal clear why I am actively opposing it rather than simply ignoring it. When starting what you called a 'stopthiswoo' site, you have to be absolutely sure that the harm you are going to cause to the subject of the site, who is a real live person with real feelings, emotions (and access to lawyers), is completely outweighed by the harm that person is doing to society.

I don't "have to" do any such thing. You're setting up all sorts of straw men here, which I am finding to be typical of you in this discussion. I am also finding that you are ignoring the questions asked of you and points refuted as you keep plodding on with ever-increasing vigor and drama.

As I have said several times before, the only major difference between what I am doing on my site and what I and others have been doing here for months is that it is happening on a different server with a different domain name.

When I posed some questions, it was made clear to me, by you, that in order to understand the issue (and therefore be qualified to debate it, I infer), I need to have read thousands of posts on the topic. No-one is going to do that from scratch. There's no benefit when the 'harm' being done by Anita appears to be zero.

Did you happen to catch the subject of this thread? I'm looking for volunteers to help flesh out the site, which is only a couple of days old. In the meantime I provide links to literally hundreds of thousands of words about VFF. It's going to take some time to distill that down.

Beyond that, I've read your points. I disagree with many of your assumptions as well as your logic. I just don't feel it's worth it arguing with you.

eirik

31st March 2009, 11:53 AM

eirik, ... ? Don't make me tell you what you could potentially do to others? And: no more pseudolaw, please. :D

But you already did tell me that I am a potential murderer and rapist, remember? I gave you an overly polite answer to that accusation and why it is more than inaccurate. And I am puzzsled on your comment on pseudo law. If I am wrong on any particular account, please point it out.

Please provide. Like a true representative of the law would. :popcorn1

You do realize that your ridicule only reflects on yourself? In here, I am a member of the JREF-forum, which happens to know a thing or two about law, as I would expect many here do. As for evidence, read your own posts, please. You have stated several times that you diagnose people with your superpowers, and that you have no intention of stopping. Are you retracting this? If so, I stand corrected.

This behaviour is dangerous. Calling it a personal study really does not help.

Yes, I find my investigation educating and enlightening. In more ways than I had ever expected. :)

Good. I hope so too.

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 11:56 AM

You seem confused. You are accusing UY of harming VfF. UY says he does not believe VfF's claims. Two different things.

He's propped up the straw man that says that I must believe that Anita could cause harm (or has caused harm) otherwise I would not have made the site. Apparently that's a requirement in the Big Book of Stop Woo Sites.

He also said that if I think she's delusional, then it is "morally indefensible" for me to have set up the website.

tsig

31st March 2009, 11:56 AM

I don't "have to" do any such thing. You're setting up all sorts of straw men here, which I am finding to be typical of you in this discussion. I am also finding that you are ignoring the questions asked of you and points refuted as you keep plodding on with ever-increasing vigor and drama.

As I have said several times before, the only major difference between what I am doing on my site and what I and others have been doing here for months is that it is happening on a different server with a different domain name.

Did you happen to catch the subject of this thread? I'm looking for volunteers to help flesh out the site, which is only a couple of days old. In the meantime I provide links to literally hundreds of thousands of words about VFF. It's going to take some time to distill that down.

Beyond that, I've read your points. I disagree with many of your assumptions as well as your logic. I just don't feel it's worth it arguing with you.

I'm getting a Vision no wait it's a Feeling that TEEK will not volunteer. Unless she does.

Moochie

31st March 2009, 11:59 AM

UY, if there's any way I can assist with the site, I'll gladly do so. From a critical point of view, I agree with the "eliminating of the sarcasm" someone suggested. Let this site be a worthy testament to critical thinking and reason.

M.

plumjam

31st March 2009, 12:11 PM

Here you go jumping right in to the legal «analogy». Prior to this we were talking about mere criticism. Tip: To do an analogy, it is often an advantage to be familiar with the subject of comparison. Which you do not know as well as you think you do. This was what I responded to. And is doing for the last time.

Fixed that for you:) Again, I rebutted your «argument», which are only unsubstantiated and uneducated guesses, based on, I don't know, mild paranoia and simple misunderstandings. It only goes to show your complete lack of understanding of simple ethics. Dangerous behaviour: bad. Non-dangerous behaviour: good.

Plenty of regulations prohibits dangerous behaviour, without threatening anyones right to a fair trial. One can even say that it is ethical to criticize a person who is acting dangerously. I don't expect you to see the parallelle.

By the way....Oh NO, I just read up on what Iraqi WMD is... pheew, glad I didn't fall for that. When are you bringing up Adolf? He surely must fit here somewhere.

But in all fairness: I shall not fall for your derailing again.

Seems like you're losing your cool, which is a shame.
Maybe it's the frustration of realising that no matter how much you twist and squirm in argumentation, the bottom line is that unless you can produce some (any) evidence then you have no case whatsoever.
That would explain why you keep studiously avoiding the matter.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 12:26 PM

But you already did tell me that I am a potential murderer and rapist, remember? I gave you an overly polite answer to that accusation and why it is more than inaccurate. But why are you saying that I am dangerous? I've shown you why your accusation against me is also unfounded.
You have stated several times that you diagnose people with your superpowers, and that you have no intention of stopping. Are you retracting this? If so, I stand corrected.It is incorrect, so do stand corrected. I've already explained many times in this thread what I actually said which was misinterpreted by some Skeptics into what you've said. So, don't make me say it again. :mad:
This behaviour is dangerous. Calling it a personal study really does not help.There is nothing dangerous about my investigation!

He's propped up the straw man that says that I must believe that Anita could cause harm (or has caused harm) otherwise I would not have made the site. Apparently that's a requirement in the Big Book of Stop Woo Sites.Then, what other reasons would you have for wanting to stop me? What exactly do you want to stop, my actual perceptions that are my own right as is my right to form my own thoughts, or the carefully conducted investigation that brings no harm to anyone who takes part of it, or the mere concept of it all, of investigating seemingly correlating associative perceptions? What exactly are we stopping, as I have done nothing wrong.
I'm getting a Vision no wait it's a Feeling that TEEK will not volunteer. Unless she does. But you will tell us eventually, which it is, won't you?

Akhenaten

31st March 2009, 12:43 PM

logical muse

31st March 2009, 12:46 PM

It's 5:30am where I am, my insomnia won tonight. Why couldn't this thread be dull? It's enthralling! Now I'll never get back to sleep.

There was a comment earlier on about the stop site being an "attack on a member, and that's going too far" or something (sorry, can't find it now). I hope that's not a general principle, as then Ms Sylvia and Ms Kaz could become members and claim that 'their' stop sites are attacking members and that's going too far.

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 12:49 PM

Then, what other reasons would you have for wanting to stop me?

I will once again quote my own site. The title banner reads:
Stop Vision From Feeling - A Skeptical Inquiry

The opening paragraph reads:
Some of us believe she is delusional while others believe she is a deliberate fraud. Still others think she is simply misguided and naive (you can register your opinion below). Regardless, her extraordinary claims should be addressed by critical thinkers. Far too many people like Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas unchecked. This site will serve to examine her claims with the impartial light of science.

Do you wanna get hung up on the "stop" part of the domain name? I needed a domain name with your domain name contained within. This will help keep my site near yours in the search rankings. The "stop" part is certainly an attention getter and likely to garner traffic from anyone researching you. Had I used another domain name, the site would still have the same content, so I suggest you not get all fussed about the word "stop."

eirik

31st March 2009, 01:09 PM

But why are you saying that I am dangerous? I've shown you why your accusation against me is also unfounded.
It is incorrect, so do stand corrected. I've already explained many times in this thread what I actually said which was misinterpreted by some Skeptics into what you've said. So, don't make me say it again. :mad:

Ok. Fair enough. Answer this very easy question, so that misconceptions are avoided:

Are you saying that you will not ever use your superpowers to diagnose people, including friends and family, unless you have the superpowers scientifically proven? (To do this you must diagnose in tests and so on, which off course will be OK)

If the answer is no, I will gladly admit that you are not dangerous. The premise for this is that you don't call everything an "investigation" or a "study".

Rairun

31st March 2009, 01:10 PM

Wow! Anita wrote seven paragraphs all starting with "I" - who woulda thunk it? While your promotional material is off-topic for this thread, your post underscores why I am creating the site. You write walls and walls of text - literally tens of thousands of words. You repeat the same discredited statements. At times you are downright deceptive, especially when you ask questions of skeptics knowing full well we have answered them repeatedly.

What's needed is a place where we can examine your claims critically without you taking over the thread with endless repetitions of discredited points, which you have again done in this thread.

I only read a small part of the other threads, and I haven't really read this whole thread either. But I have to agree with her here--how is that one particular post of hers "discredited"? Her "claims" here are no different from a person who claims to have had hallucinations, i.e. they are not claims at all. You could doubt that they are really hallucinating, or that she is having weird visual, olfactory and taste experiences, but what's the point? I suppose a brain scan would show us the truth, but it sounds pretty mundane to me.

My point is that she didn't actually claim there is a correspondence between her experiences and reality, at least not in the post you quoted. The way you dismiss it makes me question whether you misread everything she's said in the other threads (which I can't be bothered to read).

Senex

31st March 2009, 01:20 PM

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 01:33 PM

The way you dismiss it makes me question whether you misread everything she's said in the other threads (which I can't be bothered to read).

If you can't be bothered to read the other threads, then why should I spend my time right now to give you the Cliff Notes version? It's like you overheard a snippet of a conversation between a couple of people discussing "Moby Dick" and concluded that the guy "just happens to like fish, that's all."

If you question my interpretation, go read things for yourself. Better still, volunteer to help out on the site. Go read the thousands of posts and come back with your interpretations.

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 01:42 PM

VFF may be a woo but she is our woo. :blush:

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 01:49 PM

It's surprising to me how few of you agree with tkingdoll that VFF hasn't approached the position a "Stop..." site requires. VFF steals no money nor tricks people to believe they were healed. She believes she has abilities but I don't see how she ever exploited anyone.

Has anyone made any such claim? Or are you operating under the assumption that those things must happen before a website is created to debunk paranormal claims?

UncaYimmy, you wish to model a site on Robert Lancaster's Stop Sylvia Browne website but you missed all the details. Sylvia had her own religion that tricked people. Sylvia took money from people. Sylvia qualified as being evil. Robert stuck to facts. Robert knew how to put his point across without leaving himself open to lawsuits. You need to talk to Robert when he recovers before following in his footsteps.

I am not "following in his footsteps" other than adopting the use of the word STOP in the domain name. To point out that Sylvia has done things that Anita has not is irrelevant. Nobody has argued that they have done the same things. Some believe that Anita is setting herself up to make such a run, but nobody has claimed that is what she is currently doing.

For various reasons the JREF forums are no longer adequate for addressing her claims. Truth be told the discussion format in general is no longer adequate because any continuity is broken by her Walls o' Text and ceaseless repetition. This leads to bickering because people are frustrated seeing the same debunked points being made for the 20th time.

eirik

31st March 2009, 01:53 PM

Seems like you're losing your cool, which is a shame.
Maybe it's the frustration of realising that no matter how much you twist and squirm in argumentation, the bottom line is that unless you can produce some (any) evidence then you have no case whatsoever.
That would explain why you keep studiously avoiding the matter.

You ask for Evidence? :id:

Did you not see it? I can't possibly post it again. 5th time makes spam. You would do well to criticise the validity of the evidence I have already presented. This is what VfF to some success has done.

Jokes aside, if VfF states that she will not use her diagnostic superpowers on others again, I actually agree that she is not dangerous. But that would take a clear and unambiguous statement, given her history here. YWe are not there yet. If this happens, I will agree that VfF is not dangerous.

The site of UncaJimmy is still something I support, as with all well mannered critisicm on woo-ideas. Everybody is entitled to their own understanding and perception of the world, but that is not a right to not be criticized.

Eirik

Rairun

31st March 2009, 01:54 PM

If you can't be bothered to read the other threads, then why should I spend my time right now to give you the Cliff Notes version? It's like you overheard a snippet of a conversation between a couple of people discussing "Moby Dick" and concluded that the guy "just happens to like fish, that's all."

If you question my interpretation, go read things for yourself. Better still, volunteer to help out on the site. Go read the thousands of posts and come back with your interpretations.

It still doesn't change the fact that you misread the post you quoted. Granted, perhaps you've lost your patience because she was inconsistent on the other threads, but if you are going to create a stopvisionfromfeeling.com, you should address every single point rationally.

Anyway, you have the right to create this site. No one is going to stop you. But I also have the right to think it's kind of lame. I mean, I haven't created a stopmymom.com website, even though my mother claims to perceive vibrations and have out-of-body experiences. It sounds like she annoyed you on an Internet forum, so you chose to go on a personal crusade to show everyone that she's full of ****. That's all. Your site isn't some sort of public service to help people who are being taken advantage of. She's not Sylvia Browne. She's not exploiting anyone.

dbalsdon

31st March 2009, 02:13 PM

Senex

31st March 2009, 02:37 PM

Has anyone made any such claim? Or are you operating under the assumption that those things must happen before a website is created to debunk paranormal claims?
I don't see why cheating someone wouldn't be a reasonable standard before starting a "Stop..." site.

I am not "following in his footsteps" other than adopting the use of the word STOP in the domain name. To point out that Sylvia has done things that Anita has not is irrelevant. Nobody has argued that they have done the same things. Some believe that Anita is setting herself up to make such a run, but nobody has claimed that is what she is currently doing.
No one knows what Anita is doing except visiting some silly Navy ship instead of more worthwhile motel visitations. ;)

For various reasons the JREF forums are no longer adequate for addressing her claims. Truth be told the discussion format in general is no longer adequate because any continuity is broken by her Walls o' Text and ceaseless repetition.
Yes, and some of us are flirting.
This leads to bickering because people are frustrated seeing the same debunked points being made for the 20th time.
Holy Smokes -- take a deep breath/now exhale. Repeat. Doesn't that help put what is important in perspective? How does this affect you? I just helped a friend of mine move and he was frustrated for good reason. I know legitimate reasons why people can be frustrated.

Not sure. Is that a trick question?Is it arameic or atlantian?

It's Swedish. Didn't those rascals leave their language after they left you their fine culture :rolleyes:

:blush:

;)

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 02:52 PM

It still doesn't change the fact that you misread the post you quoted.

In the post I quoted I snipped everything but the first word in each paragraph ("I"). I did not address any of her points directly. I held it up as an example of how Anita floods threads with self-indulgent Walls o' Text and repetition. Since you have not read anything else, you cannot comment on whether what she wrote was repetitious.

So, really, I don't know how you can say I "misread" her post since I wasn't directly addressing the content. She could have said, "Anybody who wants to know about my claims can visit my website. It's all there." But she didn't, did she? That's what I was driving at.

Anyway, you have the right to create this site. No one is going to stop you. But I also have the right to think it's kind of lame. I mean, I haven't created a stopmymom.com website, even though my mother claims to perceive vibrations and have out-of-body experiences. It sounds like she annoyed you on an Internet forum, so you chose to go on a personal crusade to show everyone that she's full of ****. That's all. Your site isn't some sort of public service to help people who are being taken advantage of. She's not Sylvia Browne. She's not exploiting anyone.

It sounds to me like you're taking after your mother in that you are making claims without a foundation in fact. Why don't you go read the thousands of posts in the VFF threads before you comment on my motivations? It's the courteous thing to do.

Moochie

31st March 2009, 03:02 PM

Those of us that inhabit this dull and boring world (some call it reality) would still like to see some of that dull and boring evidence.

If you had produced that UY's site and this thread would have never come to pass.

My thoughts as well. VfF, I don't know where you get the "dull and boring" from, as it's never been that to me.

Living in the meat and potatoes world as I do, I'm not about to validate your "perceptions" as "paranormal" or anything else for that matter. I (and perhaps some others here) need to see some evidence of this "perception" of yours. Many have made innumerable suggestions for ways of producing some evidence that you possess any ability that could be considered out of the ordinary and you've managed to sidestep them all.

Here's a clue if you mean what you say above: cease posting here until such a time as you have incontrovertible proof of what you claim. I doubt if anyone here is even remotely interested in "helping" you anymore, given your record here, so you'll need to find others to do that.

In short, you have almost zero credibility as far as I (and perhaps some others here) are concerned. Quit blowing smoke and bring forth something that's recognizably real. At the moment, the only difference between you and "The Professor" is that you are much more verbose.

M.

Uncayimmy

31st March 2009, 03:14 PM

Thats the best thing about Roberts sites. No interpretation needed. A nice simple:

1. Sylvia/Kaz's claim
2. Heres the evidence for/against the claim being correct.
3. Goto 1

Not:

1. I think Sylvia/Kaz are frauds/wrong.
2. So do some other people.
3. Go look at the JREF forum to come up with your own conclusion
4. The end.

Watch the JREF Forums become unworkable (closures, moderated threads) as a place to discuss the claims by VFF.
Watch VFF write things on her website that she doesn't share here including statements about how she wants to make fun of (or have fun with) skeptics.
Receive IM chat solications from VFF, share publicly some of what was said, then face accusations that you're not being fair, so then you post the entire contents of the chat and wonder why you ever accepted the chat to begin with.
Decide a better solution is needed.
Get the basics of a new website in place.
Solicit volunteers to help flesh it out.
Listen to people complain about how it's incomplete.
Wonder what part of "Volunteers Needed" was so confusing.
Listen to people who have never participated in any of the VFF threads pretend like they know better.
Argue with Monday Morning Quarterbacks coming out of the woodwork.
Catch more grief for the site being incomplete because you're spending so much time here arguing about it.
Wonder even more what part of "Volunteers Needed" was so confusing.
Decide to restrict your responses to comments from people who actually participated in the VFF threads.
Realize that several of those people are already on the new website waiting to help out.

Moochie

31st March 2009, 03:25 PM

So, we haven't read many comments from people concerning the actual content of UncaYimmy's new site, other than a few about the blackboard picture.

Would anyone who's actually had a lookie care to comment?

Apart from a few minor technical issues, it's fine, and I'd like to see VfF visit sometime. I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure that VfF will be treated civilly and with respect for her person. As to her ideas, well, they will be thoroughly scrutinized, as one would expect from a bunch of skeptics. Suffice it to say that posts like #206 above, chock full of yet more absurd hogwash, will be given the critical derision they deserve.

M.

logical muse

31st March 2009, 07:22 PM

eirik

31st March 2009, 08:12 PM

I am also fairly certain that few of Lancasters articles gives the pretence of strict objectiveness. To the contrary. It encourages people to make up their own minds, based on faximiles here and there, anecdotes and several more or less substantiated claims. He is open on his critisism and evaluation of his sources, though. But it is a clear subjective profile on the site, my impression anyway. I think that is refreshing, as he does it well.

Darat

1st April 2009, 01:13 AM

I've had to move a whole bunch of posts that were again (on the whole) about claims against or for visionfromfeelings rather than the site or what is posted on the site.

The moves are not precise, this type of wholesale cleaning up never is and there may be one or two post that shouldn't have been moved and one or two that should have but weren't.

There was a lot of good, well reasoned content in some of the posts I moved but I had previously warned Members to keep to the topic of this thread. You are of course free to reuse your posts in any of the ongoing threads about visionfromfeelings claims.

I will issue suspensions if I have to move any further posts from this thread.

Akhenaten

1st April 2009, 03:49 AM

It still doesn't change the fact that you misread the post you quoted.

So a person who doesn't bother reading threads before commenting in them feels qualified to criticise someone else's ability to read for comprehension in those very threads? That's risky.

Granted, perhaps you've lost your patience because she was inconsistent on the other threads, but if you are going to create a stopvisionfromfeeling.com, you should address every single point rationally.

Granted, perhaps you don't know enough to comment, but if you're going to create rules for how other people should run their websites you should address every single clue and then go out and get one of your own.

Anyway, you have the right to create this site. No one is going to stop you.

Unca Yimmy will be delighted that your approval has been received. It will be a great relief that this major obstacle has been overcome.

But I also have the right to think it's kind of lame.

You do indeed, just as I have a right to think posters who barge into the middle of a thread, admitting they haven't read it, and proceed to hold forth on matters of which they have no knowledge are kind of lame. Other people reading your posts have this right too. Be worried.

I mean, I haven't created a stopmymom.com website, even though my mother claims to perceive vibrations and have out-of-body experiences.

I haven't built a space shuttle, even though I really want to fly in space. Someone tell NASA that they have to stop! I want to call my ship the SS Non Sequitur. Nice name, eh?

It sounds like she annoyed you on an Internet forum, so you chose to go on a personal crusade to show everyone that she's full of ****. That's all.

You should have read the conversations that you're commenting on. They sound different when you do, and it will help your responses sound less uninformed than they do now. That's not all, but it would be a start.

Your site isn't some sort of public service to help people who are being taken advantage of.

As a member of the public who is constantly being taken advantage of, I find the site to be of great service to me. Does this affect your statement above?

Why yes! It does. Imagine that.

She's not Sylvia Browne. She's not exploiting anyone.

UncaYimmy knows her name. You know nothing. You should exploit your reading for comprehension ability, but do try not to strain it.

Cheers,

Pharaoh

Akhenaten

1st April 2009, 03:58 AM

Akhenaten

1st April 2009, 04:04 AM

Apart from a few minor technical issues, it's fine, and I'd like to see VfF visit sometime. I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure that VfF will be treated civilly and with respect for her person. As to her ideas, well, they will be thoroughly scrutinized, as one would expect from a bunch of skeptics. Suffice it to say that posts like #206 above, chock full of yet more absurd hogwash, will be given the critical derision they deserve.

M.

Thanks Moochie, just about echoes my hopes and thoughts, except that I don't know enough to recognise a technical issue.

:)

VisionFromFeeling

1st April 2009, 09:25 AM

I will conclude on the topic of this thread by saying that I find UncaYimmy's webpage charming. I realize that my paranormal claim is going to be provocative and controversial to many, and obviously it stirs up a lot of reactions especially in Skeptics, since I presented the claim before having the evidence that explains it one way or the other, thinking that the discussion leading toward the evidence and final conclusion would be an equally interesting part of the process. Rather, that has provoked a lot of discomfort and impatience has grown very strong. (Anyone who can set up a study or a test on my claim right now, please do so and I'll be there. Just give me people to look at and we'll see what's what.)

To me my medical perceptions are nothing out of the ordinary. I've taken them for granted. I had no way of expecting such a commotion, well, I did expect some, but not to this extent.

However, to this day at least, I am quite happy with UncaYimmy's website, if it lets people talk about their thoughts or reactions to my provocative claim. I don't agree with personal attacks that are against me as a person, nor to be attacked due to the slow progress and impatience of others, nor for anything that is part of my personal or professional life, such as my family, education, or career, as I am working quite hard to keep those from being involved. I do not appreciate conclusions that are expressed with utter belief that the cause of my perceptions as well as my choice to investigate them and to do so openly as I have chosen to do would be mental illness, since I see no evidence of that. There are also other misconceptions about me expressed with belief in them although they are not true. And I grow tired of defending myself against that which isn't even an issue other than in your minds.

I would appreciate a more civil relationship with "my Skeptics". I realize I am the source of the provocation, but some of you need to learn how to express yourselves in a civil manner. Maybe, just think to yourselves, what would you really say, and how would you say it, if I were there with you in person? Because some of the negativity here is just unbelievable, and I have a hard time believing that it represents who you are in real life. And I know for sure that it doesn't represent what Skepticism is all about. I assure you, if my claim will end up being falsified, it will only be falsified with evidence and truth, not lies and assumptions. And no amount of meanness or upset that is added to what you say is ever going to have that effect!

Perhaps we are all upset because my lifespan as a paranormal claimant has exceeded the usual, maybe because I am really being sincere about my experience, and there has come up nothing to falsify it yet? I am not lying, not making this up, I am not running a scam. This is all an honest inquiry into a real, interesting experience that I have that resembles the paranormal and that just happens to seem to correlate with the real world.

And by the way, I do not need to be "stopped". I am doing an interesting investigation and there is no harm in any of it. :)

desertgal

1st April 2009, 10:05 AM

I think most of your statement should have been in the other thread(s), since you meandered away from the subject of UncaYimmy's website.

I do not appreciate conclusions that are expressed with utter belief that the cause of my perceptions as well as my choice to investigate them and to do so openly as I have chosen to do would be mental illness, since I see no evidence of that.

Well, mental illness or delusional behavior or, simply, the reality that you have allowed yourself to believe in something that isn't true is a hard thing to face, and it takes strength and courage to do so. No one expects that you would be willing to confront the evidence of that, or are even capable of it. Many people never reach that point. It's okay. :)

And it's certainly ridiculous to think that you would admit to running a scam, so your denial is expected. That doesn't stop people from being entitled to believe that. :)

And I grow tired of defending myself against that which isn't even an issue other than in your minds.

So, don't. Such fantasies are rarely an issue for the person who creates them. Why would they be? A fantasy world is much more fun than the dull, boring, ordinary world.

(Where else would you expect someone to hold their personal opinion of an issue, though? Someone else's mind?)

In any case, kudos to UncaYimmy for being willing to establish an honest, objective look at VfF's claims (and NOT attempting to dictate their opinions.) :)

Moochie

1st April 2009, 10:25 AM

Thanks Moochie, just about echoes my hopes and thoughts, except that I don't know enough to recognise a technical issue.

:)

I'm no expert either, so to me what UY's accomplished is akin to magic. :)

M.

Akhenaten

1st April 2009, 11:23 AM

<snip for brevity only>

And by the way, I do not need to be "stopped". I am doing an interesting investigation and there is no harm in any of it. :)

I think you need to be stopped from drawing the wrong conclusions from what you observe and acting on them in ways that aren't going to help you get into mainstream science where you belong. I don't think anyone can stop you from doing anything you set your mind to järn mö. :)

Ashles

1st April 2009, 11:35 AM

Perhaps we are all upset because my lifespan as a paranormal claimant has exceeded the usual, maybe because I am really being sincere about my experience, and there has come up nothing to falsify it yet?
Well without running any tests and the fact any protocols you suggest specifically exclude a falsification scenario then that is hardly surprising.
There is no 'usual' length of a claim... if someone refuses to ever have proper testing then it is very easy to keep a claim going indefinitely.

Again this is you talking about yourself and your claim which you have been repeatedly instructed not to do in this thread.

Getting back to UncaYimmy's website - it would be useful if you could specify as clearly as possible, what your actual medical claim is, and under what circumstances and in what environment so we can actually devote a thread to the specifics of the claim, which is, so far, still lacking.

Maybe Unca Yimmy could create a moderated thread on that site where only you and he could post.

William Smith

1st April 2009, 01:21 PM

I like this discussion. Its core is a modern medium and its use.

At least half a dozen people made good points. Then the bickering started. This happens and does not subtract from the points made. It subtracts a bit from said forum members' reputation.

I am still on the fence as to the nature of UncaYimmy's site. I want to make up my mind about it.

I would appreciate it very much if the discussion could be continued with the same high quality of arguments minus the personal issues. Thanks, guys.

Ashles

1st April 2009, 02:42 PM

I would appreciate it very much if the discussion could be continued with the same high quality of arguments minus the personal issues. Thanks, guys.
Try the original claim thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149). It was like that for a while.

I would strongly recommend that anyone who thinks these recent threads have been overly filled with bickering (which I wouldn't deny) should read that thread.

It is not a defense of any posts here that could be seen as undesirable or unproductive.
But it may show how much this claim has already been discussed and why seemingly reasonable suggestions by Anita are being treated with a certain degree of derision - they have all been discussed already in great detail, with many people here (who are now being seen as agressive) being at the forefront of trying to assist in developing a real test protocol.

UncaYimmy's site is a place where, if frustrations boil over, as they clearly are here by now, they can be expressed without fear of moderator actions.
Nobody wants to find themselves suspended or banned because of a too strongly worded response caused by frustration in responding to the same claim for the umpteenth time.

And I agree with your reminder to us all that personal issues must be avoided.
Lets see if we can get through this whole claim without anyone being suspended or worse.

After all you know what Nazis those mods are.
That's a joke, that's a joke, I love all the mods.

GeeMack

1st April 2009, 08:35 PM

Regarding www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com (http://www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com/)...

Anita either has the extra-sensory super powers she claims to have, or she doesn't.

If she does have the powers, there's absolutely no way anyone would know it because she hasn't provided a shred of supportive evidence. And she hasn't been at all cooperative with anyone's efforts to help her obtain that evidence.

If she doesn't possess the aforementioned super powers, she either believes there's a realistic possibility that she does, or she doesn't believe that. Either way, she claims to have the extra-sensory perception.

If she doesn't have such powers, and believes she does, there's a seriously real possibility she's got a mental health problem.

If she doesn't have the super powers, and understands that she doesn't, then she's a liar.

No human has ever been verified to have extra-sensory super powers before, none of the six billion plus alive today nor any of the billions who have come and gone before. So it is reasonable to assume that she does not possess the powers, especially given the complete lack of evidence to support Anita's claim. And given her steadfast insistence that she is indeed superhuman, it pretty much begs for speculation as to the rationale behind her insistence and behind her absolute refusal to provide supportive evidence.

Now here's the rub: The reasons why she would claim to have the powers and why she would work so desperately to avoid testing her claim aren't especially flattering. Well some people aren't too keen on straightforward comments like, "Since you are unable in any way to substantiate your claim of having supernatural powers, the best supported, most likely explanations for your claiming that are (a) you are mentally ill and/or (b) you are a liar." And you can only couch such comments in wishy-washy diplomacy for so long before someone drops the pretense and just tells it like it is. Then the thread gets chopped up into AAH or gets put under moderator oversight.

So if UncaYimmy's site offers an opportunity to discuss Anita's problem without having to tip-toe around to avoid an infraction of someone's sense of decorum, I say good for you, UncaYimmy. And good luck with it.

desertgal

1st April 2009, 09:28 PM

Well said, GeeMack.

Rairun

1st April 2009, 10:15 PM

So a person who doesn't bother reading threads before commenting in them feels qualified to criticise someone else's ability to read for comprehension in those very threads? That's risky.

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.

Granted, perhaps you don't know enough to comment, but if you're going to create rules for how other people should run their websites you should address every single clue and then go out and get one of your own.

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't create any rules. My point was that if you expect your average reader to take you seriously, it's a good idea to address the points the other person is actually making. If they're contradicting previous posts of theirs, you're better off pointing that out instead of giving imprecise answers, which may be ultimately right, but don't address their latest statements properly. If someone is constantly shifting positions, you have to pin them down.

Unca Yimmy will be delighted that your approval has been received. It will be a great relief that this major obstacle has been overcome.

Strawman. If I say someone has the right to do something, it doesn't mean I'm granting them that right. It's a statement of fact, not a performative utterance.

You do indeed, just as I have a right to think posters who barge into the middle of a thread, admitting they haven't read it, and proceed to hold forth on matters of which they have no knowledge are kind of lame. Other people reading your posts have this right too. Be worried.

Check my response to you on the other thread. I falsified your proposition that "I don't know what I'm talking about." I haven't said anything about what I didn't read.

I haven't built a space shuttle, even though I really want to fly in space. Someone tell NASA that they have to stop! I want to call my ship the SS Non Sequitur. Nice name, eh?

I see you are a little dense. My point is that there are thousands of people who believe they have powers out there. Some people believe there is such a thing as the power of prayer. They think that if they pray for their sick daughter before going to bed, maybe it will help her to get better (while taking her medication, obviously). Maybe it will help their wives to find a job after being fired.

I don't know if it's a real practice--I learned about it in a novel--but apparently there is an old Greek custom that allows a person to divine a child's gender by dangling a spoon over the mother's pregnant belly. It's a delusion, of course. We all know it is. Still, do we really have to promote a campaign against a poor old grandmother who believes in it?

Again, I have no power to stop anyone from doing that. No one needs my permission to do what they want. This is just my opinion.

As a member of the public who is constantly being taken advantage of, I find the site to be of great service to me. Does this affect your statement above?

Why yes! It does. Imagine that.

Even ignoring the fact that you completely made this up, you're still wrong. Anita hasn't taken advantage of anyone. At the very most she wasted your precious hours on a message board--if you regret that, a simple solution would be not to get involved. Give up on helping her out. Again, Anita is not Sylvia Browne. Quite frankly, she is a no one. Nobody knows her outside this forum. She hasn't founded a religious cult.

As much as UncaYimmy says that the name of the site doesn't matter, I beg to differ. If he wanted to have a similar URL, he could have easily picked something like www.debunkvisionfromfeeling.com. Saying that we should "stop" Anita makes her sound like a dangerous criminal. I honestly don't know how any of you can deny that. I might be willing to do some corpus analysis to show you this if you're that stubborn.

There is also the fact that this kind of cheapens similar named sites against people who actually need to be stopped.

Anita may be delusional. I'm perfectly okay with that conclusion. I wouldn't think the site was a lousy idea if it was just a venue to debunk her claims. UncaYimmy claims it is, but I'm sorry, the site's name is the very first thing people will see. It sets the tone for the whole project.

Uncayimmy

2nd April 2009, 12:46 AM

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.
It's threads, plural. Literally thousands of posts. Just to be clear how much context you're missing.

As much as UncaYimmy says that the name of the site doesn't matter, I beg to differ. If he wanted to have a similar URL, he could have easily picked something like www.debunkvisionfromfeeling.com. Saying that we should "stop" Anita makes her sound like a dangerous criminal. I honestly don't know how any of you can deny that. I might be willing to do some corpus analysis to show you this if you're that stubborn.

There is also the fact that this kind of cheapens similar named sites against people who actually need to be stopped.

Anita may be delusional. I'm perfectly okay with that conclusion. I wouldn't think the site was a lousy idea if it was just a venue to debunk her claims. UncaYimmy claims it is, but I'm sorry, the site's name is the very first thing people will see. It sets the tone for the whole project.

I will do my best to make sure the STOP part is made clear. Here's the thing. You claim she is a nobody. If she's a nobody, then my site will be a nobody as well. My site's usefulness will increase if her popularity increases. That's the only way people are going to find it. If that happens, then she would need to be "stopped" in your book.

You are wrong to say that she is unknown outside of this forum. She's known elsewhere including:
* IIG West (multiple mentions in their newsletter)
* UK Skeptics
* Answers.Yahoo.com (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081119163604AA4pwwq)
* Meetup.com
* The Doctor and Psychics Dreambook (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=10&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.dreambook.com%2Fsacurry%2Ft hedoctorandthepsychic.html&ei=mVjUSbbZJ5_mlQfGw5nVDA&usg=AFQjCNEio-oVcDrPAisAqP3QJarxJZNvrQ&sig2=8lU8MN8ueZC5lvGT7vRgkA)

On top of that she's contacted local government officials and the owner of a local mall. She has contacted professors and asked to involve fellow students. She is planning to go out into the streets and start soliciting volunteers to be read. She is doing this with the "help" of the local skeptics group (FACT). It is my opinion that she is using them to give herself an air of legitimacy. That aside, the fact remains is that she is taking this thing to the general public. And she's documenting it all on her website.

It's no bigger than what I have made it out to be, but it's a lot bigger than you seem to believe.

Akhenaten

2nd April 2009, 05:43 AM

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.

Therefore you lack context. Hence my earlier comments to you.

I see you are a little dense.

That's what I want you to see. Later on, when it's much too late, the awful truth will be revealed.

or . . .

I see you are a little dense.

Is this your Main Claim™ or can you see other stuff inside bodies as well?

Please choose one.

Akhenaten

2nd April 2009, 05:55 AM

And I grow tired of defending myself against that which isn't even an issue other than in your minds.

How appropriately quixotic that you choose to defend against what you yourself describe as imaginary issues. No wonder you're tired.

tsig

2nd April 2009, 06:25 AM

How appropriately quixotic that you choose to defend against what you yourself describe as imaginary issues. No wonder you're tired.

I'm tired just from watching her wave her hands, dance around a point and moving the goalposts.

VisionFromFeeling

2nd April 2009, 08:35 AM

She is planning to go out into the streets and start soliciting volunteers to be read. UncaYimmy... you're just turning everything around so that it agrees with your preconceived suspicions about a paranormal claimant. Lately, you are constantly spreading lies and misconceptions about me. Could you please stop?

You're making it sound as if I'm going out into the public to do psychic readings, when that is entirely not true. The study will be presented as a study into what impressions people make about their health and whether those impressions represent their actual health or not. There is no mention of anything paranormal what so ever, since that would not be necessary and we haven't established anything paranormal as of yet. According to what evidence is or is not available now I could be doing just that, looking at external impressions and basing my conclusions on that. Even if I beg to differ. But that's just me.

The information that is given on the volunteers' questionnaires clearly states that the volunteers will not find out what was assumed about their health. Because in case it would represent incorrect health information then that could cause distress to the person. UncaYimmy, it's not like I'm setting up a table and saying "come and get your psychic readings!" Stop it.
She is doing this with the "help" of the local skeptics group (FACT). In my opinion Skeptics are the most reliable participants for any kind of study into a claimed paranormal phenomenon. Would you rather see me involve my friends in the study? And what do you mean by "help"? I couldn't do it without the participants. Obviously I can't approach volunteers and chat with them and have access to their questionnaires. Nor should I be the one who is left with my own questionnaires after the study.

I have also provided a waiver that clearly states that the study is designed entirely by myself and that it is not endorsed by FACT. The participants, although members of FACT, do not represent FACT during the time of the study. Conclusions drawn on the study are not endorsed by FACT. I am not using their name, or credibility. All I want is reliable participants. The study is not a test. It is not designed to provide evidence in favor of the claim. I thought I had made all of that very clear, but it seems that your preconceived ideas are clearer in your mind than is what is actually going on. It is my opinion that she is using them to give herself an air of legitimacy. Skeptics are the most reliable participants I can think of, so that I can personally better trust the way the data is handled and the outcome of the study. I am leaving my questionnaires, the volunteers' questionnaires, the controls' questionnaires, all paperwork of the study in the hands of others, and I feel I can trust it in the hands of Skeptics. I have no reason to suspect them of not handling it responsibly. I wouldn't even trust my own friends with this! I take the study seriously, even if you don't. Furthermore I can trust the observations and conclusions made by the local Skeptics. They would not be swayed into agreeing with the paranormal claim and are able to see to facts and evidence, and they have already proven themselves to be of that quality. I see no higher quality of participants than the Skeptics.
That aside, the fact remains is that she is taking this thing to the general public. I already answered to that.
And she's documenting it all on her website.What on earth is wrong with that?!

*If this post is moved to another thread I would ask that UncaYimmy's post #239 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4576741&postcount=239) is also moved. If people are allowed to post misleading accusations against me here and I am not allowed to respond to them here then there is something wrong with the JREF. You can't just represent one (and false) version here.

VisionFromFeeling

2nd April 2009, 08:42 AM

I'm tired just from watching her wave her hands, dance around a point and moving the goalposts. The goal is and has been around my claim. Which is the claim of correlating medical perceptions. It is Forum Skeptics who move around by trying to force me to test other things that are not my paranormal claim.

desertgal

2nd April 2009, 08:52 AM

The goal is and has been around my claim. Which is the claim of correlating medical perceptions. It is Forum Skeptics who move around by trying to force me to test other things that are not my paranormal claim.

No, you can't lay that one at the skeptic's feet - although it's a perfect example of how you treat people here like crap by foisting the blame onto them.

YOU continue to make the other unverified, unsubstantiated claims. You have from the beginning. Without that, the issue of testing them would never have come up.

If you wanted to stick to your main claim, then that is the only claim you should have made here.

Which means that trying to "smell" the difference between real flowers and synthetic ones from a distance, and with glass in the way, should make an excellent test without involving medical tests.
Madalch! I didn't recognize you without the green creature picture! As always, when Madalch does post, it is brilliant. This is a wonderful test, and I would do it!

How do we make flowers that are visually indistinguishable from real ones?

Please indicate the part where Madalch "forced" you to agree?

Ashles

2nd April 2009, 08:55 AM

It is Forum Skeptics who move around by trying to force me to test other things that are not my paranormal claim.
Then why do you make other paranormal claims if you have no interest in ever testing them?

Why do you make other paranormal claims if, when questioned, you claim they are weak and unreliable. Weak and unreliable to the extent it is unclear why you would even believe you had them in the first place?

Why do you make other paranormal claims which would be extremely suitable for quick easy and simple testing, and then simply refuse to test them, even though such tests would add credibility to your main claim.

Anita, how would you view somebody who said they could perform every feat you said you could, but with a greater level of accuracy? What questions might you ask them?

VisionFromFeeling

2nd April 2009, 09:18 AM

desertgal

2nd April 2009, 09:21 AM

Most of the "other claims" that you speak about are excerpts taken from my website, where I present them to give a background of my paranormal claim of medical perceptions. I think that my experiences of synesthesia are interesting and relevant to the discussion about my experience of medical perceptions. I have one and only one paranormal claim which I wish to have tested and that is the claim of correlating medical perceptions.

And yet another lie. You made most of these claims HERE. They were responded to HERE. You agreed to testing them HERE. This can be proven by a search of the original thread.

(I'm sorry, Darat, I completely lost track of what thread I was in...violation of the mod box was not intentional. It will not happen again.)

Ashles

2nd April 2009, 09:36 AM

Most of the "other claims" that you speak about are excerpts taken from my website, where I present them to give a background of my paranormal claim of medical perceptions. I think that my experiences of synesthesia are interesting and relevant to the discussion about my experience of medical perceptions. I have one and only one paranormal claim which I wish to have tested and that is the claim of correlating medical perceptions.

I am going to respond to this question in the other thread as, unlike you, I don't want to be suspended for ignoring the mods repeated instructions to keep this thread about the website.

Uncayimmy

2nd April 2009, 02:39 PM

UncaYimmy... you're just turning everything around so that it agrees with your preconceived suspicions about a paranormal claimant. Lately, you are constantly spreading lies and misconceptions about me. Could you please stop?
I cannot stop what I am not doing. What I need you to stop doing is accusing me lying when you have have no basis for such an accusation.

You're making it sound as if I'm going out into the public to do psychic readings, when that is entirely not true.
The issue I was addressing was someone arguing that you are unknown outside of this forum and that you are doing nothing outside of this forum. That assumption is incorrect. Your Wall o' Text does not contradict my statement.

Therefore, you must stop accusing me of lying.

UncaYimmy, it's not like I'm setting up a table and saying "come and get your psychic readings!" Stop it.
I never said you were. Stop it.

In my opinion Skeptics are the most reliable participants for any kind of study into a claimed paranormal phenomenon.
How does this contradict my opinion that you are doing it to give your "investigation" an air of legitimacy?

I have also provided a waiver that clearly states that the study is designed entirely by myself and that it is not endorsed by FACT.
I think FACT is foolish for engaging you in your "study" under conditions they do not endorse.

The participants, although members of FACT, do not represent FACT during the time of the study. Conclusions drawn on the study are not endorsed by FACT. I am not using their name, or credibility.
Your study page (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) is littered with references to the group and how much they have helped you. In fact you mention Dr. Carlson's name 23 times. Waiver or not, you are using their credibility.