www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[tkingdoll]

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

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

You see? Can't have it both ways.

 

[tsig]

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

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

 

[eirik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

eirik

 

[tsig]

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

You see? Can't have it both ways.

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

 

[Jackalgirl]

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

You see? Can't have it both ways.

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

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations.

How have I been responsible for hazardous behavior?

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

Find one lawyer who says that my investigation has broken some law or regulation and that it therefore requires legal action and consequence?

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

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

 

[plumjam]

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

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

Tsig, are you a fraud or just crazy?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

 

[Moochie]

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

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

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

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


M.

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

 

[Ashles]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do we all reckon about that?

 

[Jackalgirl]

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Akhenaten]

<Scissors of Brevity>

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

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

<^TM™>

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

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

As long as you play nice, I share your disgust

Dear Skeptics, I am your good Claimant.

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

 

[tkingdoll]

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

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

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

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

 

[tsig]

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

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

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

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

You are the one harming VfF. Your continual statements about metal illness are a direct slap in her face.

UY does not represent JREF. What he does as a private individual is not the purview of anybody here.

I find it most odd that you are a more fervent defender of VfF than she is herself.

Also the mods(Darat) have already addressed this issue so you seem to be pounding on a locked door.

 

[Jackalgirl]

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

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

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

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

 

[eirik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Now, I see other people claiming that she is dangerous (as in, has the potential to do harm) based on her own stated intent to continue to diagnose people using her superpowers and her complete unwillingness to have those superpowers tested (or to consider that she might, in fact, not have superpowers).

Nonsense! What I've said is that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, once I find out what the actual correlation is between my medical perceptions and with actual health, the perceptions continue to occur and I will continue to experience them! Not that I'd be expressing the perceptions to people!

Furthermore I am working very hard to reach a final testing protocol with the IIG. The study gathers the experience and insight I need in order to form a test protocol!

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

The probability that she will eventually do harm to people is higher (based on the evidence of her own stated intent to continue diagnosing people with her superpowers) than the chance, say, that eirik will rape someone (which is a chance based on no evidence whatsoever).

There is no evidence that I have any intention or tendency of expressing to people other than close friends and family and very carefully, what medical perceptions I perceive from them!

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

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