VFF and the Diaphragm Test

[Uncayimmy]

VisionFromFeeling contacted me via Skype last Friday to ask me what I thought of a test where she detects whether a woman has a diaphragm (http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/diaphram.htm) in her vagina or not. The story she related is "I saw a diaphragm!! I really saw it! I have never seen one before! <snip> A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear. It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that."

She wanted to know what I thought about a test protocol where "...I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "

It should be noted that VFF did not actually confirm that the person she saw was, in fact, wearing a diaphragm. This is also the first time she has ever perceived a diaphragm. She said, "This is actually once again one of my strongest perceptions. So I would definitely consider a test with this, if it could be arranged." Of course, this seems to contradict her claims that she puts no faith in perceptions being real and that it's her "apparent accuracy" that she is investigating.

A diaphragm test would not be a "diversion from the IIG kidney test" but something she can do during the time she waits for a reply from IIG ("the ball is in their hands now, so to speak").

For those who are wondering whether I should be revealing what she sent to me privately, I already told VFF that I would no longer consider any communications from her to be private (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4914416#post4914416).

[NoZed Avenger]

Oh, Swete Jesu.

Please, just stop.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear.
And of course she'd never agree to a test protocol that tested this claimed ability. (Have her sit in a room, have 10 women walk by the open door at intervals of say 1 minute each--"instantaneous". 5 of the women would have diaphragms and 5 not, and the roll of a 10 sided die determines the sequence. VFF has a sheet of paper numbered 1 through 10, and on each one she writes down "Yes" or "No"--the "Yes" meaning "has a diaphragm" and the "No" meaning does not. If she doesn't get all 10 right, she will admit that she doesn't have this claimed ability.) Instead, she'd want the women to be in the same room with her and sit for 15 minutes (or an hour or whatever).

[Audible Click]

To make the test easier the women could use Tampax, she should be able to see that just as well or better. :blush:

[shandyjan]

Here we go again..... :catfight:
UY... cant you take your time and stop John Edward or someone who is expanding the woo, I really think all this is just giving too much attention, it'll never end!

[Uncayimmy]

Here we go again..... :catfight:
UY... cant you take your time and stop John Edward or someone who is expanding the woo, I really think all this is just giving too much attention, it'll never end!

1) John Edward doesn't send me Skype messages.

2) I happen to think that if somebody put their efforts towards discrediting John Edward before he had a chance to perfect his act, you probably never would have heard of him.

3) Whether VFF wants attention or not is immaterial to whether that attention discredits her or not. If the migraine group she contacted happens to stop by here in their research and sees that the person who contacted them about "healing" also thinks she can detect diaphragms in the vagina, I think that's a good thing.

4) Your response really has nothing to do with the subject of my post.

5) Nobody is stopping you from going after John Edward.

[Empress]

Oh good god. Just when you think it can't possibly get any worse she comes up with this.

UY, you have a hell of a lot more patience than I do. I'm duly impressed.

[Giggywig]

Seems like an easy enough test to perform. So it will never happen.

[bickerer]

I initially interpreted that "diaphragm" in horror as being her thoracic diaphragm.... and in her vagina :eek: but having picked myself up off the floor and realizing my error, have come to pretty much the same conclusion as NoZed Avenger. When does it stop? Can she detect a build-up of earwax? Or the sandwich I had for lunch? Beef or ham?? Mayo or mustard?? White bread or brown?

[Audible Click]

I initially interpreted that "diaphragm" in horror as being her thoracic diaphragm.... and in her vagina :eek: but having picked myself up off the floor and realizing my error, have come to pretty much the same conclusion as NoZed Avenger. When does it stop? Can she detect a build-up of earwax? Or the sandwich I had for lunch? Beef or ham?? Mayo or mustard?? White bread or brown?

Time will tell. :D

[Kariboo]

and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "



Obviously she would have to set it up a little better than that.

One thing is asking about anti conception devices (as in what kind do you use ...multiple choice). But what is important for Vff is to know if someone is wearing a diaphragm at that moment not if they use it in general. A bit personal but whatever.

[shandyjan]

Touche!
OK I will just avoid the VFF threads...they all read the same and I'm sure you know what youre doing

[bookitty]

If this person is claiming to see a foreign object within the body of a person, there should be a less icky test. (Yes, I know "icky" isn't scientific) Pace makers, titanium bone implants and breast augmentation leap to mind.

Or perhaps, given the previous threads, VFF is trying to come up with something too difficult. Getting volunteers for this one might be problematic. Then she gets to say that the JREF "wouldn't" test her.

[GeeMack]

Because women will be walking around wearing a diaphragm just in case? I mean, I'm not a woman or anything, and I don't really know the (pun intended) ins and outs of using a diaphragm. But from my understanding, it is to be inserted shortly before having sex, and would generally be removed shortly after? Doesn't it generally entail the use of contraceptive jelly? Isn't there a sort of time limit on its effectiveness for a particular, uh, session?

Hey, Anita, if you're reading this...

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.


You are, without a shred of a doubt, a liar and a fraud.

[Audible Click]

Wearing a diaphragm longer then the recommended time increases the risk of toxic shock syndrome. I'll have to go research the time but that may have a bearing on the test (yes I know, there will probably never be a test.)

ETA:

In rare cases, women have developed toxic shock syndrome after leaving a diaphragm or a cervical cap in too long. You should keep a diaphragm in for no more than six hours after sex; don't leave it in longer than 24 hours even if you have sex again.

https://www.caremark.com/wps/portal/HEALTH_RESOURCES?topic=tss

[desertgal]

Wearing a diaphragm longer then the recommended time increases the risk of toxic shock syndrome. I'll have to go research the time but that may have a bearing on the test (yes I know, there will probably never be a test.)

ETA:

In rare cases, women have developed toxic shock syndrome after leaving a diaphragm or a cervical cap in too long. You should keep a diaphragm in for no more than six hours after sex; don't leave it in longer than 24 hours even if you have sex again.

https://www.caremark.com/wps/portal/HEALTH_RESOURCES?topic=tss

Well, it has to be noted that they aren't the most comfortable device to use. And, you know, they're not contact lenses, Anita. Women don't generally include their diaphragm in their morning routine and then waltz through their day in the hope they might get lucky at some point.

Plus, and I'm sure I'm not the only woman to feel this way - to be asked by a complete stranger, for no legitimate reason, if a) I use a diaphragm; and b) if the device is currently in place, would be a tad out of line.

[LightinDarkness]

This is another classic for VFF. We all know she has no intention of doing any test - ever. She never will. She will just keep suggesting more strange and absurd tests while ignoring the simple ones because she doesn't want the tests to actually ever occur.

[Farencue]

Frightening stuff.
Not the diaphragm but the ongoing ploys for attention.

[JWideman]

Pretty much untestable and even more ridiculous than usual.

[Empress]

I'd like to know how she's going to verify if the victim is telling the truth about whether or not a diaphram is being currently employed.

Thank FSM I'm not eligible to be part of this "study"!
*shudder*

[GeeMack]

Women don't generally include their diaphragm in their morning routine and then waltz through their day in the hope they might get lucky at some point.


Thanks, desertgal. That's more or less how I had it figured.

[Jeff Corey]

Given the problems with devising a protocol with a diaphragm, why not just use something that could be easily placed into a person's orifice and easily detected, such as a a 1/2 inch steel ball bearing. A variety of orifices could be used for the test, and it would not have to be discriminatory, people of any gender could volunteer. Half of the 40 volunteers would be randomly assigned to the ball bearing group, the other half would get a placebo, which would be a 1/2 inch slice of a Hebrew National All Beef Frank.
The volunteers would express their preference for the orifice to receive the offering and a panel of judges will check said orifices for foreign material, such as small rodents, which could contaminate the test.
The claimant would have one minute to tell if the ball bearing was present in each person of not. A pass counts as a miss. The data are to be analyzed with the binomial test, with p and q = .5 and alpha < .01. Since this a one tailed test, that would be 28 correct out of 40 guesses.

[Farencue]

Splendid idea!

[GeeMack]

The volunteers would express their preference for the orifice to receive the offering and a panel of judges will check said orifices for foreign material, such as small rodents, which could contaminate the test.


Dammit, Lemmiwinks!

[Jeff Corey]

I admit I had to google to get the South Park reference. I feel like such a gerbil.

[Jonquill]

According to Wiki - "in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception"

And no wonder - they sound horrid.

[GeeMack]

According to Wiki - "in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception"


So it does make me wonder about the chances of running into a person on the street who is currently wearing (is that the right word, wearing?) a diaphragm compared to the chances of running into a person missing a kidney. Especially considering that a person missing a kidney will be missing it 24/7, but a person with a diaphragm currently inserted at any given moment, of the very few who use one at all, and out in public for god's sake, would be, I'd guess, pretty rare.

This one will be ready for the laughing dogs soon, very soon.

[desertgal]

So it does make me wonder about the chances of running into a person on the street who is currently wearing (is that the right word, wearing?) a diaphragm compared to the chances of running into a person missing a kidney. Especially considering that a person missing a kidney will be missing it 24/7, but a person with a diaphragm currently inserted at any given moment, of the very few who use one at all, and out in public for god's sake, would be, I'd guess, pretty rare.

This one will be ready for the laughing dogs soon, very soon.

I'd say the chances of encountering diaphragm wearing women are very high if all one has to do to 'encounter' them is to conjure their existence up out of thin air and put them in an anecdote.

In reality? Not so much.

'Soon' has arrived. :p

[Uncayimmy]

Women don't generally include their diaphragm in their morning routine and then waltz through their day in the hope they might get lucky at some point.
Another bubble burst.

[Uncayimmy]

According to Wiki - "in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception"

Which is roughly about the same percentage (estimated) of people born with one kidney. What a co-winky-dink! I didn't realize the percentage of diaphragm users was so small. Besides being a ridiculous test for other reasons, it's just not practical to find test subjects. So, I guess in a way it's perfect!

[Jonquill]

The idea of suddenly seeing into a random stangers private parts seems quite incodceivable to me.

Seriously though what would even trigger that thought? It's almost dream like isn't it, just the randomness of it seems odd. Aside from whether you believe that what are perceiving is actually real or not.

[Audible Click]

Back on topic. It will be interesting if Anita posts about this latest talent and wants a protocol for a test.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Oh, Swete Jesu.

Please, just stop.

I have to second this- it must be obvious to all by now what this is

[Uncayimmy]

The idea of suddenly seeing into a random stangers private parts seems quite incodceivable to me.

Seriously though what would even trigger that thought? It's almost dream like isn't it, just the randomness of it seems odd. Aside from whether you believe that what are perceiving is actually real or not.

VFF told me, "The reason I saw it is because it produced a feeling of imbalance in the vibrational information of the body, like something that is not natural." As I said before, based on everything I've heard from her both publicly and privately, I get the impression that she gets a "feeling" about somebody and then her imagination creates the associated imagery. Her ghost stories, though she claims they are not related, are really examples of the same experience. She saw Ben Franklin like she wanted to see him.

The question you bring up is what I asked myself. Was there a TV show recently about diaphragms? Did it come up in conversation somehow? She told us, "It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that." Maybe not consciously, but how about subconsciously? I don't dream much, but whenever I do, I have always been able to associate my dreams with events or thoughts in the recent past. Sometimes it takes a while for me to realize what it was because our brains don't keep all the details of every moment in our minds.

[SezMe]

Oh, Swete Jesu.

Please, just stop.
Thirded....but with better speeling.

[SezMe]

If this person is claiming to see a foreign object within the body of a person, there should be a less icky test. (Yes, I know "icky" isn't scientific) Pace makers, titanium bone implants and breast augmentation leap to mind.
Since I sport two beautiful titanium hips, you ought to see my pelvic x-ray. Pretty scary. So if VFF can see anything foreign in the body, a large hip joint replacement unit should be it. And they are pretty common.

[Jonquill]

Didn't Wayne the volunteer skeptic have a diaphragm problem of a different nature?

[Farencue]

No, he had a tired shoulder and an Adam's apple I believe.

[Agatha]

What about a menstrual cup, Mooncup or similar? More women use those than do diaphragms (I have no statistics to show this, just anecdotal discussions).

However while I wouldn't object to answering a survey about sanitary protection, I would find it embarrassing to be asked "and do you have your mooncup in place right now?" in a public setting.

[skeen]

*yawn*

[pakeha]

VisionFromFeeling contacted me via Skype last Friday to ask me what I thought of a test where she detects whether a woman has a diaphragm (http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/diaphram.htm) in her vagina or not. The story she related is "I saw a diaphragm!! I really saw it! I have never seen one before! <snip> A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear. It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that."

She wanted to know what I thought about a test protocol where "...I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "

It should be noted that VFF did not actually confirm that the person she saw was, in fact, wearing a diaphragm. This is also the first time she has ever perceived a diaphragm. She said, "This is actually once again one of my strongest perceptions. So I would definitely consider a test with this, if it could be arranged." Of course, this seems to contradict her claims that she puts no faith in perceptions being real and that it's her "apparent accuracy" that she is investigating.

A diaphragm test would not be a "diversion from the IIG kidney test" but something she can do during the time she waits for a reply from IIG ("the ball is in their hands now, so to speak").

For those who are wondering whether I should be revealing what she sent to me privately, I already told VFF that I would no longer consider any communications from her to be private (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4914416#post4914416).

It's interesting that VfF imagines that's a protocol.


She wanted to know what I thought about a test protocol where "...I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "

And even more interesting that she immediately jumps to publicise what may simply be a one off.

[desertgal]

No, he had a tired shoulder and an Adam's apple I believe.

He had had a 'severed diaphragm' in the past - and Anita completely missed that, scars and all. Anita only 'perceives' surgical scars when she already knows they are there. :rolleyes:

[Apology]

Complete and utter nonsense. Desertgal is right about the use of the diaphragm. It's inserted shortly before sexual activity and left in for a set period of time afterwards (6 to 8 hours) and then removed. Even if you were able to identify a number of diaphragm users, it's unlikely that they'd actually be wearing the thing at the time that you met them.

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.

[bookitty]

Since I sport two beautiful titanium hips, you ought to see my pelvic x-ray. Pretty scary. So if VFF can see anything foreign in the body, a large hip joint replacement unit should be it. And they are pretty common.

I am sorry you went through whatever happened but I really want to see those X-rays. The workings of titanium hip replacement would be very interesting. Plus x-rays have a certain art to them.

A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck). The more I think of it, the more people I know who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies.

I am guessing that VFF is young, in her early 20's. If she is faking then it makes sense that she would "see" a diaphragm rather than any of the more common implants. In your 20's you don't know many people with replacement parts. It seems like a one in a million chance that someone would have metal in their body. Something related to to sex would seem more possible.

Of course, if she does read the threads, we should see an upward trend in titanium reporting within the next few weeks.

[blue sock monkey]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

[Sideroxylon]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

With her super powers she'd be able to clearly see such a thing in someone's gob even.

[bookitty]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

The list of possible foreign material in the body is pretty large - mercury or composite dental fillings, dentures, titanium in their body, piercings, various types of implants and replacements, IUD, pacemaker, port for chemotherapy, glass eyes.

With one exception, I know people who have or have had all of the above at some time. It seems if someone was capable of getting spontaneous images of foreign material in the human body, that they would be a bit overwhelmed.

[blue sock monkey]

The list of possible foreign material in the body is pretty large - mercury or composite dental fillings, dentures, titanium in their body, piercings, various types of implants and replacements, IUD, pacemaker, port for chemotherapy, glass eyes.

With one exception, I know people who have or have had all of the above at some time. It seems if someone was capable of getting spontaneous images of foreign material in the human body, that they would be a bit overwhelmed.

Your objection is perfectly reasonable. However, VfF has now claimed to be able to use her X-ray vision to spot a scrap of silicone or latex when directing her attention to a specific part of the body. Surely a nice coin in the stomach would be at least as easy?

[Uncayimmy]

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.

But what if she was wearing one? The fact that it's so rare makes this perception even more extraordinary. Only 1 in 500 women of child bearing age even use one these days. And when they do, it's only in for a relatively short period of time. How astounding that VFF was able to detect this with just a glance. Let's not confuse the issue with the fact that VFF doesn't actually know that the woman was wearing a diaphragm. It was a "strong" perception, so that's sufficient, right?

The diaphragm perception sums up VFF's claims quite neatly. She applied for the IIG test because she had "apparent accuracy" that she believed was worth testing. Despite all these perceptions she supposedly got right, she never could come up with anything to test. A full year and a half after applying for the IIG Challenge, she had her first and only (alleged) perception of a missing kidney. Six months later this becomes the holy grail for falsifying her claims.

And now she has her first and only perception of a diaphragm, only she has no idea of she was even correct. She's willing to use this for a test. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be crystal clear now that her belief in her super powers comes first. She's not just misguided about "apparent accuracy" and trying to investigate her experiences. She's operating from the premise that what she "perceives" is real.

I'll leave the concluding statement to GeeMack.

[Madalch]

I'd hate to try swallowing a penny. I managed when I was a kid, but I think I'd choke now.

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Keep on-topic from now on please.

[shuttlt]

I'm sure this has been covered in one of the thousand and one VFF posts, but is she only able to use her x-ray vision through living flesh? You couldn't just stick a diaphragm inside a frozen chicken?

[Uncayimmy]

I'm sure this has been covered in one of the thousand and one VFF posts, but is she only able to use her x-ray vision through living flesh? You couldn't just stick a diaphragm inside a frozen chicken?

She has made claims about detecting chemicals, but she insists her "strongest" claims are about detecting medical conditions in living humans, and that's all she says she wants to test.

[shuttlt]

She has made claims about detecting chemicals, but she insists her "strongest" claims are about detecting medical conditions in living humans, and that's all she says she wants to test.
Is a diaphragm really a medical condition? What's the difference between a diaphragm in some womans vagina and a penny under my tongue (at least from the perspective of any test)? If you scrunch up a diaphragm and conceal it in one of your fists, would she be able to tell which fist it was in?

[pakeha]

Nice one, UncaJimmy
Let's not confuse the issue with the fact that VFF doesn't actually know that the woman was wearing a diaphragm. It was a "strong" perception, so that's sufficient, right?

[Uncayimmy]

Is a diaphragm really a medical condition? What's the difference between a diaphragm in some womans vagina and a penny under my tongue (at least from the perspective of any test)? If you scrunch up a diaphragm and conceal it in one of your fists, would she be able to tell which fist it was in?

I would agree that a diaphragm is not a medical condition. As she describes it, the vibrational patterns are disturbed, whatever that means. Understand that in her "Survey Notes" she pondered whether her eyes sent out something that caused the molecules in a person to vibrate, which she in turn "downloads" and uses to construct 3-D images. This theory could explain why she believes she needs to see the person in order to do her thing.

To respond to the "meta-message" in your post, the whole thing doesn't make any sense to anyone except her. We have pointed out dozens and dozens of inconsistencies. She tries to rationalize most of them. For the rest she just stomps her feet and says that she's only going to test what she wants to test - her abilities are what they are, and she's just trying to find out why there is an "apparent accuracy" that needs to be explained.

[volatile]

Maybe it wasn't a diagphram? Maybe it was a moon cup? Women wear those all day...

[Uncayimmy]

Maybe it wasn't a diagphram? Maybe it was a moon cup? Women wear those all day...

True, but VFF already told us that she has detected menstruation. Surely as a woman she has been made aware when other women around her were menstruating, so I doubt very seriously that she would confuse the two given her astounding powers of perception and the opportunity for confirmation.

Then again, I have this theory that it's all just a product of her fanciful imagination and has no basis in reality. Crazy, I know, but somebody has to say it.

[Skeptical Greg]

...............

[VisionFromFeeling]

I am sorry. This is an inappropriate conversation topic. There are plenty of intimate and uncomfortable perceptions that I would not want to involve in a public discussion, so, sorry guys! I really thought this would stay between UY and me. :blush:

The idea of suddenly seeing into a random stangers private parts seems quite incodceivable to me.

Seriously though what would even trigger that thought? It's almost dream like isn't it, just the randomness of it seems odd. Aside from whether you believe that what are perceiving is actually real or not.I have been having medical perceptions of these areas all the time. One of my earliest and most clear perceptions was female cysts. Another was when I saw a "bloody uterus" in a woman who was having her menstruation. I've also perceived genital herpes in a young woman. Just to mention a few. Again, things I don't think are appropriate for discussion in a public Forum. Children could be reading.

However while I wouldn't object to answering a survey about sanitary protection, I would find it embarrassing to be asked "and do you have your mooncup in place right now?" in a public setting.UY conveniently (for him, to make his point), forgot/omitted certain sections of what I said to him. Here is the entire conversation:

Jim! Guess what I saw!

I saw a diaphragm!! I really saw it! I have never seen one before!

Well? How about that for a test?

Hm. But I wouldn't want to think about how to confirm who has and hasn't... 8/

A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear. It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that.

The reason I saw it is because it produced a feeling of imbalance in the vibrational information of the body, like something that is not natural.

Of course I can not confirm my anecdotal account of this. It is not like I could approach the woman and ask her about it, although I did give it serious consideration whether there was any ethical way to do such a thing, and I concluded that there is no way I can ask.

This is actually once again one of my strongest perceptions. So I would definitely consider a test with this, if it could be arranged. 8/

Jim, can I ask for your opinion on something?

If I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. The questionnaire is anonymous and is placed in an envelope and the envelope is then sealed. Afterwards, the envelopes are opened and the answers are quickly checked by comparing the mark that I made with the yes/no answer made by the woman that was asked. What do you think?

Should be simple, shouldn't it? Not as a diversion from the IIG kidney test, but at least as something I can do during the time I wait for a reply from IIG (the ball is in their hands now, so to speak).

Good, isn't it? Yes?UY omitted/forgot to mention the obvious reasons why I did not check for accuracy of the perception, and that the cards would be placed into envelopes and that would make it less awkward. Note: I will not be doing this kind of survey.

Complete and utter nonsense. Desertgal is right about the use of the diaphragm. It's inserted shortly before sexual activity and left in for a set period of time afterwards (6 to 8 hours) and then removed. Even if you were able to identify a number of diaphragm users, it's unlikely that they'd actually be wearing the thing at the time that you met them.

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?

[volatile]

Oh, no problem, everyone! It wasn't a diagphram at all! It was an IUD! In the vagina.

Glad we got the cleared up.

At least she's not making things up as she goes along in order to rationalise the manifest errors in her perceptions this time!

[tesscaline]

Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?It could have been your imagination...

[VisionFromFeeling]

A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck). The more I think of it, the more people I know who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies.

I am guessing that VFF is young, in her early 20's. If she is faking then it makes sense that she would "see" a diaphragm rather than any of the more common implants. In your 20's you don't know many people with replacement parts. It seems like a one in a million chance that someone would have metal in their body. Something related to to sex would seem more possible.

Of course, if she does read the threads, we should see an upward trend in titanium reporting within the next few weeks.I am certainly open to the possibility that my perceptions are imaginary and part of synesthesia. That is why I am eager to arrange a test soon to determine that. Would your friends who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies be interested in taking part in a little test of my claim? Whereabouts are you?

[SezMe]

Would your friends who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies be interested in taking part in a little test of my claim?
Why does it have to be permanent?

[pakeha]

It was good to see a response from VfF.
The following quotation is clipped for space:I am sorry. This is an inappropriate conversation topic. There are plenty of intimate and uncomfortable perceptions that I would not want to involve in a public discussion, so, sorry guys! I really thought this would stay between UY and me. :blush:
I don't think so. This is simply the latest in a series of unsupported claims on the part of VfF.
As for the indelicacy of natural feminine functions, well, tampons, sanitary towels, even sanitary towels designed for the problems associated with menopause are the subject of televised publicity in the EU, and at any hour of the day or night.

I have been having medical perceptions of these areas all the time. One of my earliest and most clear perceptions was female cysts. Another was when I saw a "bloody uterus" in a woman who was having her menstruation. I've also perceived genital herpes in a young woman. Just to mention a few. Again, things I don't think are appropriate for discussion in a public Forum. Children could be reading.

This sounds really false to me, VfF.
If it's inappropriate, why talk about it and with such detail?
In any case what age of children would be reading this thread?
3 year olds? 9 year olds? 15 year olds?


Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?

White?
For starters- a tampon.

[LightinDarkness]

I am certainly open to the possibility that my perceptions are imaginary and part of synesthesia. That is why I am eager to arrange a test soon to determine that. Would your friends who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies be interested in taking part in a little test of my claim? Whereabouts are you?

Oh goodness, please stop it with the synesthesia stuff. You don't have synesthesia - synesthesia would not cause you to have delusions about objects inside living flesh. You stumbled upon synesthesia when trying to rationalize your powers and have tried to work it in as a "legitimate" explanation for them...but it just doesn't have any basis in fact.

The most likely possibility is you don't have synesthesia or superpowers. Indeed, I have asked several times if you have ever been medically tested for synesthesia and you have remained silent - because you almost certainly don't have it. It just your little ruse you use to try to make your superpowers seem like they have some basis in fact.

[Uncayimmy]

I am sorry. This is an inappropriate conversation topic. There are plenty of intimate and uncomfortable perceptions that I would not want to involve in a public discussion, so, sorry guys! I really thought this would stay between UY and me. :blush:
I told you before not to tell me things you do not want made public. I don't know much more more clear I can be.

UY conveniently (for him, to make his point), forgot/omitted certain sections of what I said to him. Here is the entire conversation:
It was not a conversation. It was one of many times where you have sent me a stream of messages over Skype with no response from me whatsoever.

UY omitted/forgot to mention the obvious reasons why I did not check for accuracy of the perception, and that the cards would be placed into envelopes and that would make it less awkward. Note: I will not be doing this kind of survey.
I didn't omit anything that was relevant. You did not check for accuracy. Why you didn't is irrelevant. Asking women if they currently have a diaphragm in the vagina is awkward no matter whether you use cards or not. What's relevant is that you were asking advice on how to conduct a test based on an unverified, split-second, VisionFromFeeling.

Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?
Since you have never once proven any of your claims under even the most rudimentary controlled conditions, and since you have repeatedly failed (or failed to complete) controlled tests given to you, and since you never verified the information to be correct, the only reasonable explanation is that this is pure fantasy on your part.

You see, here on Earth, people cannot see the vaginas of fully clothed women walking past a doorway, much less inside them. Trust me, history is littered with millions of teenage boys who have tried.

[desertgal]

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8149/user8961pic137612488232.jpg

[Farencue]

Earth is such a boring place, no sooper powers:(
A white dwarf star near Acturus on the other hand.....

[Stellafane]

I can do VFF one better: I can see whether or not someone has a full load of feces in their bowels. Just make them stay in a room where I can watch them for 6 hours, and I will predict 100% accuracy!

[Elizabeth I]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

I swallowed a rock once (well, a very small pebble) when I was in nursery school. I wonder if she could tell that about me?

[Farencue]

VfF can detect full bladders!
mmhmm, I think we could be onto something.
How about we stake out a public toilet?

[GeeMack]

What else could it have been?


A figment of your wild imagination? A wholly fictional pile of crap created by you for the purpose of feeding your insatiable need for attention? A manifestation of some sort of mental illness? Any way about it, it might be a good idea for you to get a professional assessment by a competent mental health professional to find out one way or another.

[GeeMack]

I am certainly open to the possibility that my perceptions are imaginary and part of synesthesia.


No, you're not open to that possibility. You either are completely sucked into believing you're some kind of special person with super x-ray powers, in which case you might be mentally ill and should probably have that checked. Or you know you're full of crap and making this stuff up, in which case you're a despicable fraud. But we are certain you are not imbued with some kind of paranormal super x-ray magical vision, and your claims are not the result of synesthesia.

Mostly we have you almost certainly pegged as...

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.


... a liar and a fraud.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is roughly about the same percentage (estimated) of people born with one kidney. What a co-winky-dink! I didn't realize the percentage of diaphragm users was so small. Besides being a ridiculous test for other reasons, it's just not practical to find test subjects. So, I guess in a way it's perfect!

That doesn't matter though. As has been pointed out, her claim is not to be able to detect who habitually uses a diaphragm, but simply the presence of one at a given moment.

It would be possible to do the test with just one subject. The same woman walks by outside the room 10 times. Whether or not she is currently with diaphragm on each walk through is determined by the toss of a coin. (Make the time interval between walk-bys standard so she can't discern anything by differences in time.)

[NoZed Avenger]

Please stop.

[FramerDave]

Do you suppose that instead of constantly going off on tangents, you could actually address direct questions and just settle on one simple test rather than constantly zigging and zagging all over the place?

In multiple threads many people with far more patience than I have tried to help you develop a clear and simple protocol for a test. Yet you dodge, misdirect and just ignore. For example, you failed to even acknowledge this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150822 in which a very simple and clear-cut test protocol was outlined. Is there some reason you did not respond even once?

For the record, I alerted VFF to this post via PM.

[Uncayimmy]

That doesn't matter though. As has been pointed out, her claim is not to be able to detect who habitually uses a diaphragm, but simply the presence of one at a given moment.

It would be possible to do the test with just one subject. The same woman walks by outside the room 10 times. Whether or not she is currently with diaphragm on each walk through is determined by the toss of a coin. (Make the time interval between walk-bys standard so she can't discern anything by differences in time.)

So, you think it's more difficult to find five women willing to wear one for a test than it is to find one woman who is willing to repeatedly go into a stall in a bathroom and hike up her skirt so can insert and remove a diaphragm based on the flip of a coin? You can't be serious.

[shuttlt]

You could always just get the woman in question to pretend to do the whole diaphragm thing and see if VFF detects anything. This should work so long as nobody tells VFF and avoids uncomfortable trips to the toilet.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I am certainly open to the possibility that my perceptions are imaginary and part of synesthesia. That is why I am eager to arrange a test soon to determine that. Would your friends who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies be interested in taking part in a little test of my claim? Whereabouts are you?


Fixed it for you

[Sean84]

Anita's argument seems to be designed around her potential as a MDC applicant.

Isn't it reasonable to deny that argument by her lack of good faith. Koenig was denied, rightly so, on that basis, and he was given special treatment by the mods because he submitted an application. Anita has submitted nothing, no paperwork, plenty of hassle.

[Agatha]

Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?
If I believed that you "saw" anything at all (which, I'm sorry to say, I don't), then it might have been a tampon, a mooncup, a diva cup, a wodge of tissue or a diaphragm or something I haven't thought of. But unless you verify your perceptions, they are meaningless in terms of a test/study, because you have no way of confirming that you did indeed see something.

[shuttlt]

Couldn't we all just agree the VFF has an amazing power that, sadly, only works under circumstances where it can't be verified, or VFF won't verify it for reasons of modesty?

[MysteryMammal]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I think the odds are good that I am) but... Why would a woman be walking around with a diaphragm inserted? I thought, and again I could be wrong, that they were inserted before sex and then removed sometime after the act. Do some women make a habit of wearing them more often?

[shuttlt]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I think the odds are good that I am) but... Why would a woman be walking around with a diaphragm inserted? I thought, and again I could be wrong, that they were inserted before sex and then removed sometime after the act. Do some women make a habit of wearing them more often?
We're already talking about a woman who claims to be able to see inside other women's vagina's without getting them naked. Objects that have been left inside women's vagina's all day aren't the most difficult thing about this to swallow.

[volatile]

Objects that have been left inside women's vagina's all day aren't the most difficult thing about this to swallow.

Kinky!

[desertgal]

I really thought this would stay between UY and me.

He told you specifically that he would no longer treat private wall o'texts from you as confidential. As usual, you were only interested in your own words.

Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?You tell us. According to you, you can "download" vibrational information and form a 3D image that allows you to "zoom" in and out, and "rotate" the image. One presumes you did the same in this case, since you saw it! You really did! It would be difficult, after examining the object in that detail, to mistake a diaphragm for something else. They do have a unique shape.

Naturally, you always have this 'ability'...except when you don't.

But, to help you out, what you 'saw' was a figment of your imagination, conjured up in your mind to create an anecdote around and feed your need for attention.

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

Okay. You're a liar and a fraud.

[skeen]

Anita, you do not have synaesthesia. You are normal. Deal with it. Bar being extremely childish of course.

What an utter joke.

[Pure Argent]

I have never seen a VFF thread before. Most entertaining.

And ludicrous.

[Ashles]

I am certainly open to the possibility that my perceptions are imaginary and part of synesthesia.


It's not a binary Psychic Or Synesthesia choice, and I don't know why you keep making that error.

We have told you over and over that it could be just imaginary (no synesthesia involved) or hallucinations or bad memory or simply made up.

Why do you fixate so intently on Synesthesia? Does it sound more exciting or special than 'imaginary'?

If you genuinely - genuinely believe you may have Synesthesia, why not go to a doctor and request a test?

I know you don't like performing tests which may conclude you don't have something unusual, but in this instance I think you should overcome this reluctance in order to discover the truth.

[LONGTABBER PE]

If you genuinely - genuinely believe you may have Synesthesia, why not go to a doctor and request a test?

I know you don't like performing tests which may conclude you don't have something unusual, but in this instance I think you should overcome this reluctance in order to discover the truth.

Can i answer that- please

[Jonquill]

VFF could try the shopping mall pretest exploration minitrial where she notes how many lady shoppers she sees that are using a tampon :)

[Sun Countess]

VfF, was the woman in question walking around the school wearing only one layer of thin cotton, or were you able to see the "item in question" under a heavier clothing layer, such as blue jeans? It's also curious that you could see the item almost instantaneously, yet require 30 minutes to detect the presence or absence of a kidney in a person wearing only a thin layer of cotton.

This seems like something simple you could test with tampons and a trusted girlfriend or girlfriends (although still oh-so-very awkward.....) before you state that something you can't possibly verify that you think you saw in a stranger's body is one of your strongest perceptions yet.

[MysteryMammal]

We're already talking about a woman who claims to be able to see inside other women's vagina's without getting them naked. Objects that have been left inside women's vagina's all day aren't the most difficult thing about this to swallow.

Good point.

I'd like to make this public: I have the ability to tell if people have a thoracic diaphragm even when they are holding their breath. Yes, I know, it's hard to believe but it is the truth. Can I be in VFF's superpower club now?

[Kariboo]

One of the criteria for synesthesia:

It's durable and generic

Once established in childhood, synesthetic associations remain constant for life, as demonstrated by test-retest situations spanning many years.

In the context of synesthesia, generic means that percepts are not pictorial, but elementary in quality—blobs, lattices, cold, rough, sour, and so forth.

You fail on both. You have different experiences with different people under different circumstances and it sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. Also you have some form of subatomic 3 dimensional something. so FAIL

Also, there are over 60 different forms of synesthesia and your experiences fit no where http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/types.htm

[Kariboo]

VFF could try the shopping mall pretest exploration minitrial where she notes how many lady shoppers she sees that are using a tampon :)

Didn't she already find out the last time that she was unable to stare at people in the mall because it was impolite? So scratch that one

Also she'd have to ask all these women if they are indeed wearing a tampon. I hope Charlotte shoppers have a sense of humor.

[Jonquill]

No eye contact required VFF could just look in that direction as they stood in front of her in a line for the till.

You wouldn't really need to ask them if you could actually see anything - it would be like counting how many shoppers wear hats.

[notwithout]

Have been following the VFF threads for a while now. Is it just me, or are her protocol suggestions getting more illogical as time goes on. We’ve seen questionnaires so convoluted that they couldn’t be scored, experiments that allow for hot and cold reading, and now this:

I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. The questionnaire is anonymous and is placed in an envelope and the envelope is then sealed. Afterwards, the envelopes are opened and the answers are quickly checked by comparing the mark that I made with the yes/no answer made by the woman that was asked. What do you think?

As pointed out earlier, women don’t generally wear their diaphragms all day long just as men don’t normally wear condoms all day long “just in case.” When we are asked about our birth control methods we’ve been school to understand that the question “Are you using a diaphragm?” actually means “Are you using a diaphragm when you have intercourse not right this second because obviously right now you’re answering survey questions and thus preventing pregnancy is not a big concern for you.” VFF’s perception of diaphragms isn’t verified by the question she’s asking. It’s not a loophole so much as it is a loop chasm. I know she said that she wouldn’t use this procedure, but the very design of it is troubling. She seems to be blinded, now more than ever, by self-delusion.

Also – just my $0.02 but I would be highly adverse to any study where she tried to view menstrual cups or tampons. In theory insertion of either device when a woman is not menstruating increases the risk for TSS. I don’t think that’s something anyone should have to risk for this particular claim. Beyond that if subjects were menstruating it may be possible to cold read. Maybe 20-20% of the menstrual cup users I know have a tendency to “sit funny” when they are using the cup. I’m sure it’s something VFF could teach herself to pick up on.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Oh goodness, please stop it with the synesthesia stuff. You don't have synesthesia - synesthesia would not cause you to have delusions about objects inside living flesh. You stumbled upon synesthesia when trying to rationalize your powers and have tried to work it in as a "legitimate" explanation for them...but it just doesn't have any basis in fact.

The most likely possibility is you don't have synesthesia or superpowers. Indeed, I have asked several times if you have ever been medically tested for synesthesia and you have remained silent - because you almost certainly don't have it. It just your little ruse you use to try to make your superpowers seem like they have some basis in fact.And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia? What I experience is very consistent with synesthesia, for instance colors and shapes associated to letters, numbers, physics equations and the written abbreviations of chemical elements and molecules. As for "superpowers", only a test can determine that. I don't claim to have superpowers. I claim to experience correlating medical images, but that is not to say that the correlation is as it has seemed to be, or that accurate perceptions are not based on normal as opposed to paranormal sources such as unintentional and subconscious cold reading. I do however claim to have synesthesia, although it has not been officially diagnosed at this point. Certain things are obvious.

Insert counter argument that opposes everything I just said and that tries to convince me against what I know to have experienced and that initiates wasted threadspace and arguments, here _______________________________

[VisionFromFeeling]

I swallowed a rock once (well, a very small pebble) when I was in nursery school. I wonder if she could tell that about me?(I wonder what the circumstances were that lead to that.) :confused:

No, you're not open to that possibility. You either are completely sucked into believing you're some kind of special person with super x-ray powers, in which case you might be mentally ill and should probably have that checked. Or you know you're full of crap and making this stuff up, in which case you're a despicable fraud. But we are certain you are not imbued with some kind of paranormal super x-ray magical vision, and your claims are not the result of synesthesia.Dear GeeMack, how about that the perceptions are automatic and I am not making them up. And how about I remain skeptical (yes, skeptical) and have not concluded whether there is an extrasensory perception or not. Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, or automatic inaccurate synesthesia. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you suppose that instead of constantly going off on tangents, you could actually address direct questions and just settle on one simple test rather than constantly zigging and zagging all over the place?

In multiple threads many people with far more patience than I have tried to help you develop a clear and simple protocol for a test. Yet you dodge, misdirect and just ignore. For example, you failed to even acknowledge this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150822 in which a very simple and clear-cut test protocol was outlined. Is there some reason you did not respond even once?

For the record, I alerted VFF to this post via PM.And here is how I answered, in PM:

Dear Skeptic,

I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG. The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys. The tangents are merely accounts of experiences and ideas that come up while I am experiencing and investigating my claims as a whole, meanwhile they are not diversions from the main claim and the test that are planned to take place with the IIG.

The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place. Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.

I hope that answers your questions.
Regards,
VFF

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita's argument seems to be designed around her potential as a MDC applicant.

Isn't it reasonable to deny that argument by her lack of good faith. Koenig was denied, rightly so, on that basis, and he was given special treatment by the mods because he submitted an application. Anita has submitted nothing, no paperwork, plenty of hassle.I am not applying with the JREF at the moment. I am working with the IIG (http://www.iigwest.com/).

[Vanda]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia? ...

You would schedule an appointment with a neurologist.

VFF - why is it that you have not been to see a neurologist to discuss your possible synesthesia?

Why won't you schedule an appointment?

[Ashles]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?


Don't worry, this isn't a test you need to invent for once. Other people already have perfectly good tests for this.

Go visit a doctor and I'm sure he will be able to put you in touch with an appropriate specialist in cognitive neurology, or whoever else is appropriate.

It's that simple.
Will you do this? It's an important first step if you believe it's something you may have.

In fact, since you have mentioned it so many times as something you think you may have, this is something now you should do before any further medical perception testing.

ETA: Apart from anything else, if you are diagnosed with Synesthesia then you know there is no paranormal claim to investigate so it negates the need for any further test designs, protocols, studys, surveys etc.

The Synesthesia test should now be considered a priority above any 'paranormal' test design.

[Professor Yaffle]

Why do you use bold letters when addressing GeeMack, VFF?

[Kariboo]

[QUOTE=VisionFromFeeling;5069417]And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

See a neurologist. They do that for a living as you may know wanting to get into the medical field.


While this
, for instance colors and shapes associated to letters, numbers, physics equations and the written abbreviations of chemical elements and molecules.

may be synesthesia

This

I claim to experience correlating medical images,

Absolutely isn't, never was, never will be. Can not be. At all. Ever.

[desertgal]

(I wonder what the circumstances were that lead to that.) :confused:

Dear GeeMack, how about that the perceptions are automatic and I am not making them up. And how about I remain skeptical (yes, skeptical) and have not concluded whether there is an extrasensory perception or not. Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, imagination/delusions/scam or automatic inaccurate synesthesia. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Fixed it for you, GeeMack. ;)

[desertgal]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

Go visit a doctor and I'm sure he will be able to put you in touch with an appropriate specialist in cognitive neurology, or whoever else is appropriate.

It's that simple.


And you've only been told that about 40 times before. :rolleyes:

[Uncayimmy]

Ah, stop it with the synesthesia nonsense this instant. All of you. If you don't, I'm gonna turn this thread around and take us home. :D

Whether she is a synesthete or not is irrelevant. The only reason she brings it up is so that she can rationalize to herself that she's not creating the images on her own but that it's some sort of involuntary reaction. It also gets people talking as though she has some sort of apparent accuracy that is triggered by "ordinary" means. Here's the reality:
* No form of synesthesia even remotely resembles what she describes.
* She does not have any apparent accuracy which needs to be explained.

If you really care about her synesthesia, we covered this before in the original VFF thread. Here's where she said she took the test:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4325579#post4325579

And here is where Professor Yaffle wrote, "If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4325873#post4325873

I also took a few tests. They are designed to include as many possible synesthetes as possible. In other words it's like a casting call. Passing a test merely means it might be worth investigating further. If you don't pass, you definitely don't have that type of synesthesia. I should also note that I was able fool the test and get an extremely high score.

VFF, of course, made several excuses, but as usual they didn't hold up. For example, she claimed that the musical test had discrepancies in producing the notes. As a musician, I knew this not to be true just with my ears. I also verified this using a waveform analyzer. She also claimed that the she sometimes saw two colors, but that's just silly. Pick one color and stick with it.

VFF also attends a university. I'm sure her they have the facilities to do some sort of testing or at least have someone on the faculty that could steer her in the right direction. If she wanted to confirm this irrelevant claim, she could do it. But she hasn't.

The book on VFF's synesthesia is closed. Let's not reopen it, especially in this thread since this thread is about detecting foreign objects in the vagina. I hope the mods will leave this brief derail in place. If they choose to move it, I hope they move it to the moderated general claims thread.

[SezMe]

I am not applying with the JREF at the moment. I am working with the IIG (http://www.iigwest.com/).
No, you are not.

I just now talked to the Exec. Dir of IIG and you are doing with them exactly what you are doing here: evasion, delay, and vagueness are all common. You have been talking with them for over a year and have not come up with a protocol for the kidney test and, in the process, suggested other kinds of tests. Those alternatives have gone nowhere.

So I assert that you're working with the IIG in EXACTLY the same manner that you are working with us. Which means you are not working toward a test at all. Full stop.

You are just feeding your need for attention or something like that. I'm no psychologist but something doesn't seem right with you and it is not that you can peer into people's bodies.

[Uncayimmy]

The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place. Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.

That only makes sense to you.

1) The chemical identification test is quick and easy. If you fail, you can cross that claim off your list. This is a worthy goal.

2) I find it very telling that you use the word "allow" as if you have any choice in the matter. Tests will falsify or confirm claims whether you "allow" them to or not. You claim to be a junior scientist in training, but you're ignoring the most basic lesson: the scientist and the subject cannot be the same person.

3) On what basis are you saying that failing to detect a missing kidney falsifies a claim of detecting chemicals? What exactly have you done to establish that relationship?

4) Furthermore, what exactly have you done to conclude that failing to detect chemicals has no bearing on whether your medical perceptions are valid or not?

5) Most importantly, why did you even bring up the whole diaphragm thing when you never confirmed your perception? Is it because it was strong? What the heck does "strong" mean? How can it be "strong" if you don't even know if it was a diaphragm, IUD, tampon or a roll of quarters?

[Vanda]

I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, you think it's more difficult to find five women willing to wear one for a test than it is to find one woman who is willing to repeatedly go into a stall in a bathroom and hike up her skirt so can insert and remove a diaphragm based on the flip of a coin? You can't be serious.

It's certainly easier (and would result in a more controlled test) than finding volunteers who are missing a kidney. If not that, then how about 10 women who are willing to walk past once either with or without a diaphragm. I like that whether or not the woman has a diaphragm in is based on a coin toss and nothing else that might provide Anita information. (Again, she claims she could "see" the diaphragm in, not that she can determine who is or is not a regular diaphragm user.)

Doesn't matter much, though, because Anita will never do a controlled test anyway.

[bookitty]

I have been contact by VFF in response to this previous post of mine:
A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck).

As it says, my friend is currently in the hospital getting titanium implants to repair both his leg and arm as a result of a horrific motorcycle accident. VFF wants to know if he is in her area and if she can scan him.

I am sickened and appalled. It is bad enough to be worried about my friend but for someone to take this heartbreaking situation and try to use it for the glorification of their own narcissistic delusion is beyond insulting. She claims to be a healer. That hasn't yet been disproved but it is safe to say that her bedside manner is repugnant.

Especially since a test where the medical problems have been spelled out in detail would be utterly useless. There was no point at all to this vile little message.

[Audible Click]

I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

Since you're late to this party, as the VfF threads were started 8 months ago I'll explain: When posters are trying to develop a protocol the posts are long due to the back and forth necessary to refine the protocol.

Many posters respond to long posts by VfF in a point by point manner which leads to long posts.

Some posters are/were genuinely interested in her many paranormal claims and were asking for answers, that can lead to long posts back and forth.

Lastly, in almost all threads on this forum you will find long posts, especially in GS&TP, CT, 911CT, Politics, Religion&Philosphy, Science, Social Issues, etc.

[JoeTheJuggler]

VfF, was the woman in question walking around the school wearing only one layer of thin cotton, or were you able to see the "item in question" under a heavier clothing layer, such as blue jeans? It's also curious that you could see the item almost instantaneously, yet require 30 minutes to detect the presence or absence of a kidney in a person wearing only a thin layer of cotton.

Yes, that's curious. She attributes that (and the inability to do her x-ray vision through a sheet) to the fact that she gets disoriented in the body.

I suggest a very basic (like 5 minute!) anatomy lesson.

[Vanda]

Audible Click,

Thanks, but I actually have been following all of her threads (and many others in this forum) since the beginning. In fact, I was addicted to reading the original thread until I gave up after a thousand or so posts.

I have great respect for the people who persist in working with her and admire their myriad "explaining" skills, but I stand by my original comment that more concise editing is always a good idea, particularly in the VFF threads.

[JoeTheJuggler]

While this
,

may be synesthesia

This



Absolutely isn't, never was, never will be. Can not be. At all. Ever.

Exactly. She can't get action potentials in her nervous system that are somehow perceptions of a person's internal organs that are being confused with vision. There is no way to get those perceptions (of some other modality?) confused with vision because those other perceptions don't exist and aren't possible.

But, as UncaYimmy says, her theories (even theories of why her claim is wrong) aren't of any consequence to the problem of testing her claim.

[Audible Click]

delete..double post

[Audible Click]

Audible Click,

Thanks, but I actually have been following all of her threads (and many others in this forum) since the beginning. In fact, I was addicted to reading the original thread until I gave up after a thousand or so posts.

I have great respect for the people who persist in working with her and admire their myriad "explaining" skills, but I stand by my original comment that more concise editing is always a good idea, particularly in the VFF threads.

Fair enough but you won't get that in a thread where the feelings run high.

[Akhenaten]

And here is how I answered, in PM:

Dear Skeptic,




Rudely.


I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG.




No, you haven't, otherwise the test would have been scheduled. Has it?


The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys.




Being alive is based on having one or two kidneys. Are you going to be simply detecting which of person is alive? (or words to that effect)


The tangents are merely accounts of experiences and ideas that come up while I am experiencing and investigating my claims as a whole, meanwhile they are not diversions from the main claim and the test that are planned to take place with the IIG.




The tangents are flights of fancy, however, I agree that they aren't diversions and in fact I believe they afford priceless insights into what's behind your Main Claim™


The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place.




The facts and the evidence make this decision, not any one person and especially not the test subject.


Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.




All of your claims of medical perceptions have failed, or were at least still-born. Subordinate claims are your only hope of providing any means of regaining lost credibility, not for your perceptive claims, which are delusory, but for your claims of being any kind of scientific investigator.


I hope that answers your questions.
Regards,
VFF




Your hopes will never produce the evidence that is required to show that you have any ability outside the normal range.


I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

What's a succinct?

[Akhenaten]

I have never seen a VFF thread before. Most entertaining.

And ludicrous.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/WelcomeToMyNightmare.jpg
©Alice Cooper

[desertgal]

I have been contact by VFF in response to this previous post of mine:
A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck).

As it says, my friend is currently in the hospital getting titanium implants to repair both his leg and arm as a result of a horrific motorcycle accident. VFF wants to know if he is in her area and if she can scan him.

I am sickened and appalled. It is bad enough to be worried about my friend but for someone to take this heartbreaking situation and try to use it for the glorification of their own narcissistic delusion is beyond insulting. She claims to be a healer. That hasn't yet been disproved but it is safe to say that her bedside manner is repugnant.

Especially since a test where the medical problems have been spelled out in detail would be utterly useless. There was no point at all to this vile little message.

Unbelievable, Anita. You have sunk to a new low. :mad:

[Uncayimmy]

It's certainly easier (and would result in a more controlled test) than finding volunteers who are missing a kidney.
How do you figure? People are born missing a kidney at about the same rate as females aged 15 to 44 use a diaphragm. At least with those born missing a kidney, we get to select from the entire population rather than a subset. Statistically speaking, the number of diaphragm users in the entire population is far smaller than those born missing a kidney. Also, about 50,000 people per year undergo nephrectomies. In other words if you swing a dead cat at the mall, you're more likely to hit a person missing a kidney than you are a person who uses a diaphragm.

If not that, then how about 10 women who are willing to walk past once either with or without a diaphragm. I like that whether or not the woman has a diaphragm in is based on a coin toss and nothing else that might provide Anita information. (Again, she claims she could "see" the diaphragm in, not that she can determine who is or is not a regular diaphragm user.)
That what was I was figuring before you said that we only needed one woman with a diaphragm. Still, there's the issue of getting volunteers. Just because you find someone who fits the bill doesn't mean they are willing to participate in a test. I would say it would be a lot harder to find a woman willing to insert a diaphragm for a test than it would be to find a person missing a kidney just willing to show up and be gawked at.

Doesn't matter much, though, because Anita will never do a controlled test anyway.
Yeh, maybe she will do a study instead!

[shuttlt]

Maybe we're thinking too small here. I don't suppose VFF can differentiate between homeopathic water and water?

[Ashles]

I've moved on from wondering why Anita won't take part in ANY test of her own paranormal claims.
It is clear now none will ever happen.
Very, very clear.
But some of us keep trying...

I'm simply wondering why she won't even undertake a perfectly simple Synesthesia test?

She has repeatedly stated that her 'perceptions' must be either genuine paanormal abilty or synesthesia. Nothing else.
I, and many others, have repeatedly stated that these are not the only two possibilities, but she has ignored all this advice and still, even now in this thread, states that the options are

Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, or automatic inaccurate synesthesia.

Okay then Anita, since you have yourself decided to narrow down the explanation of your perception to two options, I have a question.

In your two options, one possibility has no known test and you are completely incapable of generating one yourself.
The other option has a known method of testing and a mundane explanation.

Why not take the test that actually already exists?

Take the test for synesthesia. In any possible genuine 'analysis' of your perceptions, this should by now be the absolute first step.

Why will you not take such a test?

If you fail and do not have synesthesia then proceed to testing for 'paranormal' abilities.
If you pass and actually have synesthesia then there is no need for other tests - the explanation is clear.

So, how genuinely do you want to understand these 'perceptions'?

Will you take such a test?
(And remember such a test will not require you creating it, it already exists so all you have to do is agree to take it.)

[LightinDarkness]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

There are medical and psychiatric professionals who can test for it. Go see one.

What I experience is very consistent with synesthesia, for instance colors and shapes associated to letters, numbers, physics equations and the written abbreviations of chemical elements and molecules.

This is another LIE. Your superpowers are not consistent with synesthesia - there is no form of it that causes the person to have delusions about body organs, birth control mechanisms, or anything else.

As for "superpowers", only a test can determine that.

Its just too bad that you don't want a test thats feasible, quick, and easy, eh?

I don't claim to have superpowers.

Right. The ability to use x-ray vision, communicate with ghosts, diagnose people over TV certainly are not superpowers:
http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Discussion/tabid/294/afv/topicsview/aff/2/Default.aspx



Insert counter argument that opposes everything I just said and that tries to convince me against what I know to have experienced and that initiates wasted threadspace and arguments, here _______________________________

Insert Anita ignoring the obvious yet again in order to believe she has super powers here _________________________

[GeeMack]

Dear GeeMack, how about that the perceptions are automatic and I am not making them up. And how about I remain skeptical (yes, skeptical) and have not concluded whether there is an extrasensory perception or not. Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, or automatic inaccurate synesthesia. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?


I think that if you were mentally ill, you quite possibly wouldn't know it. If you were mentally ill, you'd quite possibly experience your hallucinations automatically and you'd believe you're not making them up. I think that if you aren't aware that you're lying, when it's been shown time and again in these conversations that you are somewhat of a habitual liar, that could also be indicative of a possible mental illness. I think that everything you supposedly experience has been shown in the past to be part of the conglomerate experience of various people with various types and styles of mental illness. Since mental illness fits all the evidence you've offered so far, and is a known phenomenon, and is common enough, you should consider that to be at least a very high priority candidate to explain all your experiences. Certainly a higher priority than the possibility that you really have some kind of magical powers.

That's if you actually think there's anything real to it.

But something else is even more likely. Many scam artists and frauds of various descriptions over the centuries have used the very same techniques you display. The existence of scam artists is well known and also common. You being a fraud could also easily explain all the evidence you've offered so far. That would explain the lies, the reluctance to be legitimately tested, the repeat visits to this forum to brag up other new and wondrous crap, the evasion, the ignorance, all of it.

You don't have symptoms of synesthesia. You don't have evidence to support extrasensory perception. You haven't ever been even remotely accurate about any of your claims, yet you continue to lie and say you are. So magic, synesthesia, and even just damned good guessing are all off the table to explain your whacked out fantasy.

Until you get a professional mental health evaluation to show otherwise, one of the two most likely explanations for all your crazy claims is common everyday mental illness. The other of the two most likely explanations, and the one probably most widely accepted by the skeptics on this forum?...

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.


... you're a liar and a fraud, of course.

[Audible Click]

No, you are not.

I just now talked to the Exec. Dir of IIG and you are doing with them exactly what you are doing here: evasion, delay, and vagueness are all common. You have been talking with them for over a year and have not come up with a protocol for the kidney test and, in the process, suggested other kinds of tests. Those alternatives have gone nowhere.

So I assert that you're working with the IIG in EXACTLY the same manner that you are working with us. Which means you are not working toward a test at all. Full stop.

You are just feeding your need for attention or something like that. I'm no psychologist but something doesn't seem right with you and it is not that you can peer into people's bodies.

This post says volumes about what is going on here. If Anita truly wants the IIG test she certainly isn't doing what needs to be done. At one point in time I really hoped, that through a good protocol, her main claim could be proven or falsified. I'm at a loss as to why she won't test anything. I hope she answers SezMe's post since she had led us to believe that IIG would test her by the end of the year. Anita what happened to the person you were going to look at that had some internal organ missing? Wasn't that set for last weekend?

[Ashles]

Ah, stop it with the synesthesia nonsense this instant. All of you. If you don't, I'm gonna turn this thread around and take us home. :D

I understand your frustration with the Synesthesia claim.

But Anita has now brought it up too many times as the only other explanation she is prepared to consider.

So surely at this point every single claim she makes that is paranormal has to be considered secondary to the alternative mundane possibility she herself keeps suggesting.

As the genuine investigator of her own perceived 'abilities' that Anita keeps claming she is, surely the only logical first step now is to take a test for Synesthesia?
Any genuine person honestly attempting to get to the root of such 'perceptions' would willingly take such a test.

There is no gain for Anita to fake success in such a test as it would render her paranormal claim ended.

If she takes such a test and does not have Synesthesia then we can rule it out and Anita can stop offering it as an alternative explanation. Then Anta can move on to attempting to generate a real paranormal protocol.

If she takes such a test and is found to actually have Synesthesia then the 'perceptions' are explained and there is no further need for testing.

Surely Anita can agree this would be the logical and scientific next step in her claim?

Of course if Anita refuses such a simple and logical test then everyone could draw certain conclusions from that refusal.

I eagerly await Anita's explanation for why she will not take a test for Synesthesia...

[LightinDarkness]

I'm simply wondering why she won't even undertake a perfectly simple Synesthesia test?

She won't take a synesthesia test because she knows that her superpowers are not really consistent with those who have synesthesia, and if she was actually tested the even more mundane explanation - mental illness - is almost guaranteed to come up.

[JoeTheJuggler]

People are born missing a kidney at about the same rate as females aged 15 to 44 use a diaphragm. At least with those born missing a kidney, we get to select from the entire population rather than a subset. Statistically speaking, the number of diaphragm users in the entire population is far smaller than those born missing a kidney. Also, about 50,000 people per year undergo nephrectomies. In other words if you swing a dead cat at the mall, you're more likely to hit a person missing a kidney than you are a person who uses a diaphragm.
I had no idea being born with one kidney happened with such frequency. (I just looked it up, and I see it's about 1:750.)

According to Wiki, ". . .in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception." If I'm doing the math right, that means 1 out of 500 women.

As an aside, I've also got a sentimental attachment to diaphragms--based on an interesting historical find I made in my house (http://joethejuggler.com/OldFlyer).

So you're right, maybe it wouldn't be so difficult getting one-kidney volunteers. (Though there's still the problem that she won't do it with a screen in place, which just opens up too much information leakage.)

But again, "use the diaphragm as a primary method of contraception" is not the claim. We'd only be looking for women willing to insert one. (Granted, it'd be easier to use women who at least have been fitted for one, whether or not that's what they use as their primary form of contraception.)

At any rate, since she refuses any test with a screen, I at least liked the idea of testing this specific claim--where she sits in a room and the subject just walks past the doorway.

[Farencue]

Im beginning to get dizzy, the energiser bunny keeps going and going in circles.

We have on hold so far:
a contractor who is missing an organ
a southern skeptical society
the IIG
the missing kidney protocol
the diaphragm idea
and some rather distasteful PM's

Is that where we are up to?

[Uncayimmy]

I had no idea being born with one kidney happened with such frequency. (I just looked it up, and I see it's about 1:750.)
The Kidney foundation says 1:500 to 1:1000 (just to point out the margin for error).

According to Wiki, ". . .in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception." If I'm doing the math right, that means 1 out of 500 women.
Yep. ETA: To be exact, 1 out of 500 women aged 15 to 44.

But again, "use the diaphragm as a primary method of contraception" is not the claim. We'd only be looking for women willing to insert one. (Granted, it'd be easier to use women who at least have been fitted for one, whether or not that's what they use as their primary form of contraception.)

They are available by prescription only in the USA. Don't know about other countries.

At any rate, since she refuses any test with a screen, I at least liked the idea of testing this specific claim--where she sits in a room and the subject just walks past the doorway.
Oh, she'd still want 15 minutes with each person just to be sure.

[SezMe]

I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG. The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys.
I again want to make it absolutely clear that the ONLY matter in agreement is that the test is to specify if a person has one or two kidneys. In over one year there has been no progress beyond this point. There is no protocol, no date, no personnel, nor any location that has been set in stone.

Her continual trotting out of the IIG test is evidence only of her dishonesty.

[Uncayimmy]

I again want to make it absolutely clear that the ONLY matter in agreement is that the test is to specify if a person has one or two kidneys. In over one year there has been no progress beyond this point. There is no protocol, no date, no personnel, nor any location that has been set in stone.

Her continual trotting out of the IIG test is evidence only of her dishonesty.

Correction. She first contacted the IIG in July 16, 2007 (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page4.html), so it would be more accurate to say that this is the sum of the progress over two years.

[Fnord]

When examining a claim, one should ask these questions:

1. Is the claim testable? If no, then it is merely a claim, and nothing more.
"We can't test the claim because the women would not let us examine them for diaphragms."

2. If the claim is testable, has it been tested? If not, then it is merely a claim, et cetera...
"We have never tested the claim because the obvious results are a foregone conclusion."

3. If the claim has been tested, then was the test methodology relevant to the claim? If no, then the claim is merely a claim, and the testing was a waste of time, resources, and effort.
"We tested the claim by examining the local drugstore's purchasing records for feminine hygeine products."

4. If the test methodology was relevant to the claim, do the results consistently support the claim each time the same methodology is used to test the claim? If no, then either there are other factors involved, the methodology leaves too much room for error, or the claim itself is invalid.
"We tested the claim by tracking down the women hours, days, or even weeks later and asking them if they were usuing a diaphragm at a certain location, at a certain time, and on a certain date."

The claim must be testable, and actually tested by a relevant methodology that yields consistent results that repeatedly support the claim.

[bookitty]

When examining a claim, one should ask these questions:

1. Is the claim testable? If no, then it is merely a claim, and nothing more.
"We can't test the claim because the women would not let us examine them for diaphragms."

2. If the claim is testable, has it been tested? If not, then it is merely a claim, et cetera...
"We have never tested the claim because the obvious results are a foregone conclusion."

3. If the claim has been tested, then was the test methodology relevant to the claim? If no, then the claim is merely a claim, and the testing was a waste of time, resources, and effort.
"We tested the claim by examining the local drugstore's purchasing records for feminine hygeine products."

4. If the test methodology was relevant to the claim, do the results consistently support the claim each time the same methodology is used to test the claim? If no, then either there are other factors involved, the methodology leaves too much room for error, or the claim itself is invalid.
"We tested the claim by tracking down the women hours, days, or even weeks later and asking them if they were usuing a diaphragm at a certain location, at a certain time, and on a certain date."

The claim must be testable, and actually tested by a relevant methodology that yields consistent results that repeatedly support the claim.

In her very first thread, VFF was offered a very simple test based on her claims - detect which cup of water held salt, sugar or baking soda. She responded to this with enthusiasm.

Perhaps she has derailed her own mental thread by getting caught up in the medical aspects of her talent. On the outside it would seem that detecting a missing kidney or a rarely used form of birth control would be a dramatic way to prove her talent. But something as simple as detecting substances in water would be proof enough. If the test were repeatable, it would change nearly everything we believe about paranormal ability.

It would be in the best interests of everyone involved to go back to that simple, easy and definitive test. It would give VFF the chance to finally prove herself.

[Apology]

They are available by prescription only in the USA. Don't know about other countries.

This is correct, because they need to be correctly fitted to the user. When used correctly, the diaphragm has a 5% failure rate. With "typical use", they have an 18 - 20% failure rate. One of the facets of "typical use" is that few women have their fit checked on a regular basis.

In case anyone is interested: Everything you ever wanted to know about the diaphragm + 5% more than you wanted to know (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/diaphragm.html)

[blue sock monkey]

TMI, Apology! :eye-poppi

I confess I don't see any advantages to developing a protocol for this claim over the missing kidney claim. There are bound to be exactly the same contretemps over permissible clothing, use of a full or partial screen, amount of time needed per subject, rounding up subjects, etc. Many weeks and hundreds of posts would probably leave us exactly where we are.

Or is that why VfF has suggested this new diversion?

[VisionFromFeeling]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.

[Uncayimmy]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.

I have told you more than once not to send anything to me privately that you do not want shared publicly. Don't pretend that you didn't want this to discussed publicly.

Your comments really aren't needed. It was a stupid idea from the word go. The best thing you can do for your credibility is to simply admit this.

[Akhenaten]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.


There is the Intent, and there is the Würd. You must master both, my Padawan.

Thank you for taking the time to tell us that you don't have the time to respond.

Ciao

[Farencue]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.

Oh shame.
Nevermind Anita, see you next time.

[desertgal]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.

In other words, now that you have proven yourself to be on the same level as all other pseudo psychics, you don't want to face it.

At least, until you need another attention fix. Then we'll be hearing another 'extraordinary', unprovable, untestable anecdotal claim. :rolleyes:

[SezMe]

Maybe we can move on to something more productive such as desertgal, where the hell did that avatar come from?

[skeen]

Anita fears most of all that she is normal. That is where her mental issue lies.

Even if she did do a proper test (which is highly unlikely), she will always, throughout her entire life, find something to which she can attach to which would call her special.

Can I ask: does anyone here even believe anymore that any test will take place?

[Akhenaten]

Anita fears most of all that she is normal. That is where her mental issue lies.

<snip to the chase>




Catch 22

[jhunter1163]

Maybe we can move on to something more productive such as desertgal, where the hell did that avatar come from?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4563469#post4563469

[SezMe]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4563469#post4563469
Thanks. Back to inanity it is, then.

[Akhenaten]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4563469#post4563469


Bloody hell, that's impressive. I must remember not to say anything stupid in front of jhunter.

:)

[Fnord]

In other words, now that you have proven yourself to be on the same level as all other pseudo psychics, you don't want to face it.

At least, until you need another attention fix. Then we'll be hearing another 'extraordinary', unprovable, untestable anecdotal claim. :rolleyes:

Dang!

You beat me to it!

No worries, though ... there'll be other attention-whores ... there always are!

[Ashles]

People, I really don't have the time to respond to questions and comments this time. I am very busy at college and of course prioritize my studies. I am sorry that this thread topic came up, as I intended to keep it between me and UY, but now I must leave you to discuss it amongst yourselves.

Please make sure to update us next time you want to inform us you don't have time to respond to us.

I guess the test you said you were going to do last weekend:
never happened/happened and you failed.

Delete as applicable.