www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

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

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

Correct me if I'm wrong though, Jim.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. I argued with him because i thought he was too easy on her.
 
UncaYimmy said:
* She has posted on other skeptic websites besides this one.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

As above.

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

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


* She has contacted several professors at her school.
Click to expand...

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

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

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


* She has read over 100 people.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will make a follow-up post explaining why I'm asking these questions, and try to tie-in how I feel it pertains to this thread, your Web site, and UncaYimmy's Web site.
 
tkingdoll said:
I don't see any harm in it, no (unless you want to make the argument that it could be perceived as affiliated with JREF, but a simple disclaimer solves that), but I also don't think it's comparable with StopSylvia, in objective or approach. Robert's sites are not written for skeptics, as this seems to be.
Click to expand...

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

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

The site is two days old. I cannot predict the future demographics of visitors. Depends on where Anita decides to spew her half baked ideas.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
You're wrong. I argued with him because i thought he was too easy on her.
Click to expand...

You were among several who, for lack of a better term, believed I was going too easy on her. When I felt that the original VFF thread was becoming ineffective, I started the moderated Interview with Vision From Feeling thread. I, along with the moderators, were accused by a number of people of giving her special treatment and a place to hide.
 
Ashles said:
In the absence of any real tests I suggest we try ignoring her harder.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

One has to start somewhere, right?

Kudos UncaYimmy.

Perhaps we can learn from your example, avoid the mistakes (which does not imply there have been any yet) and improve them for future endeavours.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Where's the discussion forum on that site? is it 'shout'?
Click to expand...

Hit Discussion in the menu. Right now there's just one forum with three threads. Didn't really think we needed to break it out into more. Feel free to start a thread.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Isn't a lot of this thread mainly the old "I resent you for actually doing something instead of just sitting in front of the keyboard!" schtick? No?

.
Click to expand...

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

One has to start somewhere, right?
Click to expand...

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

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

I cannot, from any of the threads, see any indication that she is a deliberate fraud, but UncaYimmy must believe that she is a deliberate fraud to have started the site. I'm interested in seeing the evidence for that, or at least the posts which indicate she is fraudulent rather than delusional.
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
...
If Anita is the 'victim' of a personal ego project, then something is very wrong. One does not start a crusade against someone who appears to be mentally ill (indeed if her claim of a synaesthesia diganosis is true, that's a major indicator of autism. Either way, she's no Sylvia Browne, surely you can see that).

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

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

GzuzKryzt said:
...
Perhaps we can learn from your example, avoid the mistakes (which does not imply there have been any yet) and improve them for future endeavours.
Click to expand...
 
tkingdoll said:
If Anita is the 'victim' of a personal ego project, then something is very wrong. One does not start a crusade against someone who appears to be mentally ill (indeed if her claim of a synaesthesia diganosis is true, that's a major indicator of autism. Either way, she's no Sylvia Browne, surely you can see that).

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for your motive, if you believe her to be delusional rather than fraudulent then I find your actions morally indefensible.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Isn't a lot of this thread mainly the old "I resent you for actually doing something instead of just sitting in front of the keyboard!" schtick? No?

One has to start somewhere, right?

Kudos UncaYimmy.

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

I agree completely:

"Those who say a thing can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing them" (unknown)
 
Dear Unca Yimmy,
which is it? You believe she's fraudulent or delusional?
If fraudulent you need some evidence.
And, as TK says, if delusional then all those hours constructing your site were just you doing what? Pretty much ridiculing a handicapped person in the street.. except the latter requires much less foresight and hard work than what you gallantly managed.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
I agree completely:

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

I'm sure people were chanting that as they picked up their pitchforks and headed for the witch burning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom