www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

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

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

 

[TSR]

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

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

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I did not fail that course, I refused to attend and therefore did not take the exams because the professor was very negative toward some of the students. That F says nothing about me as a student nor my skills in the course. It just says that I won't be treated that way.

 

[TSR]

I did not fail that course, I refused to attend and therefore did not take the exams because the professor was very negative toward some of the students. That F says nothing about me as a student nor my skills in the course. It just says that I won't be treated that way.

/
It says that you're making excuses for not passing the class, when the Uni has very clear processes in place which would have allowed you to withdraw from the class without penalty.

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

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

 

[Ernie M]

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

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

Hi Anita,

Thank you for answering my questions.

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

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

Quote from the character “Ellie” on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, “Ellie” episode:

Well, you see the thing with me is, I’m mind over matter. I can imagine a hamburger, and I’m full.

Quote from your Web site, “How it Works” tab > “Different types of perceptions” > paragraph four:

I sense information about foods. I can taste a food just by looking at it, which is great fun. When a friend of mine eats ice-cream I ask if I can watch him eat it. I turn away and only look at the side of his neck and do not see when he eats it or what type of flavors, and I can actually feel the cold, the texture, the sweet, the taste, through him. Almost as if it were me eating it. I get the experience without the calories.

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

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

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

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

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

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[tkingdoll]

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

To UncaYimmy (and others who support the site):

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

I see no evidence for that here whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If she's crazy, what are you doing?

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

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

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I did not fail that course, I refused to attend and therefore did not take the exams because the professor was very negative toward some of the students. That F says nothing about me as a student nor my skills in the course. It just says that I won't be treated that way.

A selective manipulation of the truth huh?

Like the rest of your claims

 

[eirik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eirik

 

[lionking]

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

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

 

[plumjam]

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

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

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

 

[eirik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lionking]

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

 

[eirik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

Wow. Talk about judge, jury and executioner.

 

[eirik]

No. It's called an argument.

 

[lionking]

Not a very good one though.

 

[EHocking]

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

Because she has removed the page where she attempts to sell a product - Body Art. A trivial example, granted, but to me it shows intent.

Potentially

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

 

[eirik]

Not a very good one though.

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